Ackerson Campaign News:https://www.ackerson2018.com
Providing news concerning the Louisville 2018 election for County Attorney. Mike OConnell is challenged by Brent Ackerson.Sat, 24 Nov 2018 06:31:41 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.9https://i2.wp.com/www.ackerson2018.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/cropped-cropped-29871960_2014663918854900_7948638208644269143_o.jpg?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1Ackerson Campaign News:https://www.ackerson2018.com
3232144657954Holiday Weight Gain And Tips To Stay Fithttps://www.ackerson2018.com/holiday-weight-gain-and-tips-to-stay-fit/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=holiday-weight-gain-and-tips-to-stay-fit
Wed, 07 Nov 2018 20:53:44 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=442Continue reading Holiday Weight Gain And Tips To Stay Fit→]]>Holidays are not just a time of year for family but a time of year for weight gain. Rather than letting yourself be beat this year by the banquet of unhealthy meals and staying in, we have a list of tips from a nutrition expert and fitness author.

Healthy Holiday Recipes And Foods

Traci D. Mitchell is a nationally recognized fitness, nutrition and weight loss expert who has been featured on numerous news programs, publications and radio shows, including Dr. Oz, the Today show, and The Steve Harvey Show. A certified personal trainer and metabolic typing adviser, Traci has been changing the lives of others for fifteen years. She holds a master’s degree in communications from Marquette University and a master’s in nutrition education from Hawthorn University. She lives in Chicago. Join the movement, become a #Belly Burner and visit her at tracidmitchell.com.

There are actually a good amount of subscribers here at Ackerson2018.com but with the Louisville 2018 Primary Election behind us and since this domain’s name has 2018 in it the time for this site has likely come to an end.

I’ll keep the site up so the ideas and the personal campaign can go on, but no new subscribers or publishes will be made here for the foreseeable future.

If you are interested in following a similar blog I’d encourage you to consider two other sites that I am running for the Louisvilleelection ahead.

Sites Matthew Is Working On

Visit my pitch site where I discuss campaigns able to hire me to SEO and SME their digital footprints before the election is too near. Now is the time to build up your site’s presence so you’re ranking byefore the election.

This site is being tested to ensure the site speed as well as SEO and security are optimal. At this time the site receives an 89/100 or Good rating with only the site speed below 100%. At the time of this score the site load time was 2.7 seconds which isn’t bad. There are additional ways to speed up the site but we are going to accept the current state as it is below 3 seconds.

]]>419Thank you.https://www.ackerson2018.com/thank-you-2/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thank-you-2
Wed, 23 May 2018 17:41:43 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=408
I want to express what a great campaign we had and how thankful we are for all the support along the way. Thank you! – Brent]]>408Thank youhttps://www.ackerson2018.com/thank-you/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thank-you
Wed, 23 May 2018 00:02:53 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=406Thanks to everyone who voted today. We’ll put up a statement from Brent once we know more.]]>406FOXNews.com Kentucky politician’s staffers forced to make campaign donations, ex-employees claimhttps://www.ackerson2018.com/foxnews-com-kentucky-politicians-staffers-forced-to-make-campaign-donations-ex-employees-claim/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=foxnews-com-kentucky-politicians-staffers-forced-to-make-campaign-donations-ex-employees-claim
Tue, 22 May 2018 02:08:02 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=388Continue reading FOXNews.com Kentucky politician’s staffers forced to make campaign donations, ex-employees claim→]]>

By Andrew Keiper

Published May 21, 2018
FoxNews.comLOUISVILLE, Ky. – A Kentucky politician has drawn the ire of his subordinates for his quick temper and expectation of political support from employees in the form of their cash. These contributions, according to some, are the product of a pattern of coercion and retribution that is unethical and a “blatant violation of the law.”

Four former employees of Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell have described to Fox News a culture of duress in O’Connell’s office, where they witnessed him consulting donor lists before considering employees for promotions.

Glenda Bradshaw, a high-ranking former prosecutor in the office, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against O’Connell after she was fired, claiming in the suit that some employees donate to his campaign out of fear of “his wrath.”

All employees who spoke to Fox News detailed similar expectations of loyalty to the Democrat in the form of cash or check.

In an emailed statement responding to this article O’Connell said through a spokesperson: “I am thankful for the campaign support I have received from all walks of our community. I am humbled that some of my staff have supported my re-election because they know firsthand the good work we perform daily.”

Before his 2008 appointment to the position, O’Connell served as both a district and circuit court judge in Kentucky.

Kara Lewis, a former attorney in O’Connell’s office, claims she was fired for no reason beyond her refusal to contribute to O’Connell’s campaign. Her firing, during which she was pulled from a courtroom and told she would no longer be working cases, threw her family’s plans into tumult and doubt.

“It affected my career, it affected my family,” Lewis said. “It had a horrible effect on my life. … It had a horrible impact on us financially.”

“When he was interviewing me, he would have already seen that I was not on any contribution lists.”

– Kara Lewis
Lewis was terminated one month after O’Connell’s re-election in 2010 after working five years in the office. At the time, she and her husband Todd were looking for houses and thinking about having children.

“I never had any sort of disciplinary things,” she said. “I was a good prosecutor and they gave me no reason. They gave me no explanation, no nothing. Just, ‘you’re not being rehired.’”

In the prior months, Lewis had applied for a supervisory role in the office. She said O’Connell was “openly hostile” during the interview; she believes her refusal to donate was a deciding factor in his decision to deny her the role.

“Before every interview he was going to his secretary and asking to see the contribution list,” Lewis said. “When he was interviewing me, he would have already seen that I was not on any contribution lists.”

The couple decided shortly after O’Connell’s appointment to the position that they would not donate. At the time, Lewis’ husband Todd was involved in enforcing campaign finance laws for former Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, and he believed O’Connell’s practices would eventually draw the eye of state or federal authorities.

“We believed, and still believe, that it is illegal for him to coerce campaign donations,” she said. “We fully expected that at some point he would be prosecuted for that because it was such a blatant violation of the law.”

After his wife was fired, Todd Lewis said he took his concerns about O’Connell’s actions to both the FBI and his employer. His proximity to the case would keep him from prosecuting the county attorney, but he felt someone should. Conway told him that his family and O’Connell’s were longtime political allies. No action was ever taken by the highest legal office in the state.

Despite multiple attempts, Conway could not be reached for comment.

O’Connell’s employees have proved to be a lucrative and constant source of cash for his political ambitions over the past decade.

In 2010, the first year the Democrat ran for re-election, his employees amassed $45,018.45 on 103 individual contributions. That represented 30 percent of the total $149,278.68 he pulled in for the primary race, according to campaign finance records.

“It’s illegal for Metro employees to be shaken down. The grey area is that all the laws talk about state and city employees. Mike’s office is a county office.”

– Brent Ackerson
The total dollar amount given by his employees dropped to just under $27,000 in 2014. However, the 95 individual donations from them made up 65 percent of the 147 donations included in the filing. O’Connell raised $230,815.03 for the successful re-election.

This year, the silver-haired politician has amassed a campaign war chest of $309,118.13 for his primary battle against local attorney Brent Ackerson. O’Connell returned to the well again, and his employees contributed $45,616.96 — about 14 percent of that total. They provided the majority of individual donations to the campaign. Of the 189 total donations, members of the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office gave 98, or nearly 52 percent.

As is the case with most incumbent politicians, the remaining balance from one race rolls over into a general campaign fund for the next election cycle.

Ackerson has consistently called O’Connell’s campaign finance practices out in local debates. The attorney also sits on the Louisville Metro Council, and has two years left on his term. He said O’Connell’s actions are certainly unethical, if not illegal.

“It’s illegal for Metro employees to be shaken down,” Ackerson said. “The grey area is that all the laws talk about state and city employees. Mike’s office is a county office.”

For his campaign, Ackerson has accumulated a touch more than $28,000, which includes a $10,000 donation to himself. O’Connell’s employees have outraised him nearly two to one.

Joshua Douglas, a campaign finance expert who is a law professor at the University of Kentucky, said officials can’t require their employees to contribute, but there’s nothing necessarily illegal about a culture of contribution.

“It’s not surprising to me that the people that work for him and presumably support him by working for him would choose to make contributions to his campaign,” Douglas said. “… The devil is in the details, and the question for me is: What are the actual facts?”

O’Connell is a county politician and the rules of the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, which has jurisdiction over state officials, aren’t necessarily the same.

“We hope that the ethics commission on the state level, our conduct would be a gold standard for the counties to follow, but there’s nothing that requires them to follow the same standard we do,” Kathryn Gabhart, executive director of the commission, said.

Although she doesn’t oversee county officials, she said each county is mandated by state law to develop its own code of ethics and review commission. Dana Nickles, council to the Jefferson County Ethics Commission, refused to comment on whether O’Connell’s alleged actions constituted an ethics violation.

However, the county commission’s guidelines state: “No Metro Officer or candidate seeking an office covered by this chapter shall compel any subordinate to participate in an election campaign or ballot referendum, or make a political contribution.”

Additionally, two provisions in the Kentucky Revised Code directly address campaign contributions from an official’s employees. One bars the coercion of votes or donations from state or federal employees. The other states that “no person shall coerce or direct any employee” to vote or contribute to campaigns.

Each law specifically mentions coercion by way of threatening or termination of employment.

Another former employee of O’Connell’s, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation, said the politician’s behavior was a product of the “old-school attorney way.”

“I’m just afraid of the repercussions that would come if he found out that I gave you this information,” the former employee said.

The individual, who was an attorney in the civil division of the office, said O’Connell fostered an anxiety among his employees through his frequent angry outbursts and constant bean counting of his employee’s political contributions.

“I would say there was somewhat a culture of fear,” the former employee said. “You wanted to make sure you didn’t piss Mike off. … It was pretty common knowledge that if you didn’t contribute then they knew about it.”

Fox News has confirmed via campaign finance records that the employee did, in fact, donate to O’Connell at least once. That person said the contributions can take a financial toll, especially on younger staffers who are still climbing the compensatory ladder.

“I didn’t want to be blacklisted or called out for not having contributed,” the former staffer said. “I feared whatever the repercussions were if you didn’t contribute.”

Glenda Bradshaw, who worked in state government for 32 years before she was fired by O’Connell, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the county attorney in 2010. In the suit, which was eventually dropped, she alleged that O’Connell was “well known to summon the campaign contribution list” when considering employees for promotions and raises. Her lawsuit seemingly corroborates Lewis’ allegations.

“It was a very unpleasant experience,” she said. “… On at least one occasion I witnessed him looking at the list prior to interviewing candidates to be made supervisor.”

Karl Price is another former employee who told Fox News about O’Connell’s anger and expectations of political loyalty. He was hired in 1992 and left in 2015 amid allegations of ethical misconduct in his private practice. Price refused to admit to ethical violations, instead leaving O’Connell’s office to focus full time on his private practice.

“Tense, if you want a single word. It was tense,” Price said. “… Generally I kept my distance, but it was not unusual to hear screaming on that side of the office, and everybody knew that was Mike’s voice.”

O’Connell, who is seeking a third term, would regularly send his employees campaign fundraising literature in the mail, and his secretary would needle people who didn’t act on those flyers. Price said the expected donation was around $200.

Campaign finance records show that Price donated at least $550 to O’Connell between 2011 and 2013.

“My opinion, most of the people felt that it was unethical behavior,” he said. “But their general disposition was they didn’t want to lose their job.”

The incumbent Democrat, longtime County Attorney Mike O’Connell, has served a decade in office but now fellow Democrat, Louisville Metro Councilman Brent Ackerson, is trying to unseat him in the Kentucky primary a week from today.

This race fits that a pattern not often seen in Kentucky with a powerful incumbent facing a challenge from someone in their own party. There’s another new trend in this race, it’s unusual to see a County Attorneys primary race reveal such a bitter difference between opponents.

“He lacks the vision and commitment to bring to this job and bring it what it needs”, said O’Connell of his challenger, Brent Ackerson.

The sitting Louisville Metro Councilman, Ackerson, had his own pointed words for the County Attorney, “Mike has been doing this for ten years. For ten years he’s been our County Attorney, for ten years things haven’t been getting any better.”

You don’t have to watch for long and you’ll see that there’s no love lost between these two candidates. But the biggest beef between these two Democrats can be found at LMPD and the case involving sex abuse allegations connected to the police explorers program. Ackerson has accused O’Connell of questionable decisions regarding identifying accusers, O’Connell accuses Ackerson of twisting the truth for political gain.

“His position is a win at all costs position”, insists Ackerson. “When they went into court to essentially request that the names of the victims be exposed, and his words were something along the lines of, ‘the officer’s names are out there these victim’s names, these accusers names should also be made public.’ All that does is discourage people from coming forward. It sends a message that if you come forward there might be political backlash to you.”

O’Connell responded, “Well, he doesn’t have anything else to talk about in his campaign. That is not true. I’ve made it clear that neither the mayor nor I want the identities of these victims to be disclosed.”

Ackerson says, if elected, he’ll bring a fresh perspective, consider reorganizing the office to allow some services to be taken care of in locations outside of downtown. County Attorney O’Connell cites efforts to battle the opioid epidemic, his standing with a national opioid lawsuit and track record of case evaluations as reasons he should continue to serve.

County Attorney Mike O’Connell is being sued for defamation after he called developer and critic Chris Thieneman a “sexual predator.”

Thieneman “is a sexual predator, he was convicted of trying to strangle his then-girlfriend,” O’Connell said in a speech this month at Jefferson Square Park. “And the women in this community should be wary and be prepared to not come in contact with him, ever.”

Thieneman filed the lawsuit in Jefferson County Court on Wednesday. The lawsuit alleges that O’Connell made his comments on May 1 at the Celebration of Law Day event at the downtown park, which is near the Hall of Justice.

“He is a danger to this community, and to the women in this community, and each one should make sure they take every precaution to protect themselves,” O’Connell said, according to the lawsuit.

Claims made in a lawsuit represent only one side of the case.

Thieneman was charged in September 2013 after he was accused of struggling over a cell phone with his ex-girlfriend and then trying to strangle her.

He was acquitted in April of 2016 of misdemeanor assault, but he was fined $500 on the charge of wanton endangerment, a misdemeanor.

Thieneman said that when he heard about O’Connell’s comments, he thought, “There’s no way this is happening.”

O’Connell said in a statement to Courier Journal that Thieneman’s attack is “without merit and is politically motivated” and again recalled his domestic violence incident.

“Chris Thieneman is a convicted domestic violence perpetrator,” O’Connell said. “I am not intimidated by this classic domestic violence bullying tactic, and I wear this lawsuit as a badge of honor for the thousands of domestic violence victims that our office helps every year.”

O’Connell, who is running for re-election and is on the ballot in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, has been criticized for his response to lawsuits alleging sexual abuse in the police’s Explorer Scout program, which is for youths interested in law enforcement careers.

“The timing is not lost on anyone either in light of the fact that this offender has actively worked against me since his conviction and is promoting my opponent,” O’Connell added.

Metro Councilman Brent Ackerson, who is taking on O’Connell in Tuesday’s primary, has aired an online ad that scolds O’Connell for arguing to release the names of Scouts who claim they were abused in the program.

O’Connell, who represents the city in civil matters, said last year that for fairness, plaintiffs should also be identified because the police officers accused of wrongdoing are mentioned by name.

Thieneman, who has been critical of the city response to the allegations, has helped organize trucks plastered with anti-O’Connell signs.

Thieneman played football for the University of Louisville and later in the World League of American Football and the Canadian Football League before taking over his family real estate business, then starting his own development company.

He ran unsuccessfully for Jefferson County clerk in 2002, U.S. Congress in 2008 and Louisville mayor in 2010. He was defeated by incumbent Democrat Perry Clark in 2012 in a state Senate race.

In the congressional race, he faced U.S. Rep. Anne Northup in the GOP primary before dropping out and angrily accusing GOP leaders — including Northup and U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell — of conspiring against him.

Thieneman also led a drive in 2007 to defeat a local occupational tax increase that would have benefited the public library system.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) – Veiled racism. Allegations of covering up the sexual abuse of teens by Louisville Metro Police. Forcing employees to make campaign contributions – or be fired.

These are few of the political haymakers thrown in an unusually fiery Democratic primary for Jefferson County attorney – a race that will likely determine who will advise Metro government and represents it in civil lawsuits No Republicans have filed to run, meaning only a write-in candidate could challenge the winner of the May 22 election.

“He thought it was only appropriate if the officers were named (in lawsuits), these officers who committed heinous rape of children were named, he thought these victims, because they are over the age of 18 — now their names should also be out there,” Ackerson said at a Louisville Forum debate with O’Connell in April.

Ackerson, who was elected to the council in 2008, has also implied that O’Connell may be protecting community leaders who knew of the police sexual abuse scandal and could have stopped it earlier.

“It appears to me there’s been a cover-up; the question is just how high up does it go?” Ackerson said in an interview with WDRB News. “When people were investigating in 2013, are you telling me there was no legal advice on how to potentially deal with this? There’s concern there, I mean, how much knowledge did the county attorney’s office have?”

O’Connell has fired back, insinuating race was a factor when Ackerson was the only council Democrat to vote against appointing University of Louisville professor Ricky L. Jones to a citizen’s police accountability board in May.

“Your vote was embarrassing and shameful and I trust that something like that will never happen again,” O’Connell told Ackerson at the April 12 forum. “But it seems to be consistent with some of your votes on council.”

And on Jones’ radio show earlier this year, O’Connell suggested that Ackerson purposefully chose in 2006 – while a registered Republican – to run for a judicial seat against two black women.

In addition, O’Connell who was appointed in 2008 and has won election twice since, has also questioned Ackerson’s lack of experience in the courts, noting he has not been a judge or a prosecutor, and whether he has been an effective council member.

“I’m not sure what legislation he has ever proposed of note in the eight or ten years he has been on council,” O’Connell said at the Louisville forum.

Ackerson said his vote had nothing to do with Jones being black. He said he did not “feel that it was the right appointment at that time.”

“I know that might have upset Dr. Jones,” Ackerson said at the Louisville Forum. “I told him that night, explained my position on the record, and then went to him afterward, shook his hand, told him it wasn’t anything personal and congratulated him on his victory.”

As county attorney, O’Connell is representing the city in six lawsuits filed by alleged victims of sexual abuse by Louisville police officers over several years in a youth mentoring program. After a hearing last year on whether the alleged sexual assault victim should be identified in the first lawsuit – currently the plaintiff is known only by the initials “N.C.” – O’Connell told reporters “it is not fair” for police to be named but not the former Explorer.

O’Connell said he “misspoke” and hours later issued a statement saying he doesn’t want the alleged assault victims to be identified. He said it’s up to a judge to decide whether the alleged victims should be named in the lawsuits against police and the city.

“Now he might have, after the fact, publicly changed his position, after he got back to the office and everyone said, ‘Mike what the heck did you just say?’ I can’t believe that you believe that,” Ackerson said. “It’s one thing to retract a position, it’s what you say and those are his words.”

And Ackerson said county attorney employees have complained that they have felt their jobs were in jeopardy if they do not donate to O’Connell’s campaigns. Ackerson said, if elected, he will not allow employees to donate to any of his future county attorney campaigns.

In response, O’Connell said he does not pressure employees to donate to his campaign and is “honored” they have enough faith in him to “choose to give.”

“I’m honored that they do that and I’m going to continue to do that if they wish to give,” he said at the Louisville Forum.

Funding imbalance

The county attorney’s office represents the city in civil litigation, handles traffic cases and prosecutes misdemeanor, juvenile and child support crimes.

Based on campaign contributions and spending, the race is not even close. O’Connell has collected $387,735 and spent $106,995, according to the most recent reports from the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance.

Through his position on the council, Ackerson is likely more well known than O’Connell’s last primary opponent, Karen Faulkner, whom O’Connell also held a sizable fundraising edge.

Faulkner garnered 45 percent of the vote in 2014. She said at the time that “obviously” a lot of voters “do not affirm his work over the last six years and in fact sought for a change.”

As a city council member for a decade, Ackerson arguably has higher name recognition than Faulkner. Ackerson has said O’Connell is “trying to buy this race” and vowed to outwork him by getting out in the community and meeting face to face with voters as much as possible.

“It’s going to be close,” said Ackerson, an attorney who specializes in civil litigation.

In addition, O’Connell has a long history of scuffling with local lawyers and judges. He has been criticized for launching an office traffic school that allows traffic offenders to avoid court costs by taking an online course, with the bulk of the proceeds going to the county attorney’s office.

Other county attorneys across the state run similar programs and O’Connell notes the funding helps the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and other agencies.

O’Connell, a Louisville native and St. X graduate, has touted his experience: He served as a district court judge from 1980 to 1987 and on the circuit bench from 1987 to 1990. He has run the county attorney’s office – with about 350 employees – for more than a decade now, winning state county attorney of the year award in Kentucky last year.

And he was key in helping to implement a veterans’ treatment court, a restorative justice program in juvenile court that helps victims and defendants work cases out without jail time and ending a practice in which defense attorneys could call judges and get them to set aside arrest warrants without any input from prosecutors.

But Ackerson said the system needs someone from the outside to take a fresh look at issues, including reducing jail overcrowding and “locking people up for stupid reasons.”

He also noted inmates are consistently being incarcerated in an illegal 1950s era jail above Louisville Metro Police Headquarters because Metro Corrections is too crowded – at a cost of about $4 million a year.

“What we’re trying is not working,” Ackerson said. “It’s time for new approaches from this office.”

But O’Connell said he deserves another term.

“If someone is doing a good job, dealt with issues, created initiatives, done things that are helpful for the community, then the voters have to judge whether that counts for something,” O’Connell said in an interview with WDRB News. :To just come in and say we need a change … is just bogus.”

Education: Bachelor’s, University of Louisville; law degree, University of Akron

Contact: brentackerson@gmail.com

Why are you the most qualified candidate running for this office? We’ve had the same county attorney for 10 years. Crime in this city is getting worse. Murder rates and youth violence have been on the rise for years. Our current county attorney offers no new solutions. It’s time for a change and a 21st-century approach to these problems.

If elected, what would be your top priority? Implement new programs and policies to work to address/reduce crime. Expand restorative justice programs and work to clean up legal records to get people back to work. Expand services from downtown out into the community. End the unethical practice of public employees being pressured to contribute money to political campaigns.

Education: Bachelor’s, Xavier University; law degree, University of Notre Dame

Contact:www.countyattorneymike.com; info@countyattorneymike.com

Why are you the most qualified candidate running for this office? I am the only candidate who has served as a judge, the only candidate who has ever prosecuted a case, and the only candidate who has managed a law firm of 128 attorneys and a staff of 335.

If elected, what would be your top priority? The opioid crisis fuels the bulk of crime in our city. We have to hold those responsible to account, but we also have to provide more help for those struggling with addiction. That’s why I push for programs that help those in need like Veteran’s Treatment Court and Casey’s Law.

A woman who is nationally recognized for speaking up on behalf of survivors of sexual abuse is calling out Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell for his response to allegations of sex abuse in a Louisville police youth program.

Katya Estes appears in an online campaign ad paid for by Metro Councilman Brent Ackerson, who is taking on O’Connell in the May 22 Democratic primary. In it, she said she is “outraged” by the county attorney’s argument to release the names of Scouts who claim they were abused in the police department’s Explorer program.

O’Connell, who represents the city in civil matters, said last year that for fairness, plaintiffs should also be identified because the police officers accused of wrongdoing are mentioned by name.

View the video

Estes said in the ad that O’Connell was “trying to exploit” the former Scouts, who participated in a program for teens interested in law enforcement that was offered by police and the Boy Scouts of America.

In an interview with Courier Journal on Tuesday, Estes said: “In my experience it’s very delicate and it’s important to have a sense of control over what’s happening with your truth. And it’s not Mr. O’Connell’s place to say that he wanted to release the names.”

The O’Connell campaign did not make the county attorney available for a comment but released a statement saying his “commitment to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault is obvious.”

It also cited that O’Connell has created a specialized unit that handle similar cases and that the Center for Women and Families, which provides shelter and services in domestic violence and sexual assault cases, honored O’Connell last year with its community service award.

Ackerson told Courier Journal on Tuesday that O’Connell’s campaign is dodging the issue but can’t ignore his words “defending police rape” last year that the councilman said stood in the way of the accusers seeking justice.

Estes gained notoriety in Louisville when she was awarded $10 million in damages two years ago after a jury found her grandfather guilty of rape and sexual assault. In 2016, she won an award from the National Children’s Alliance for her work at the Family and Children’s Place, which has four offices across the Louisville region.

Estes said she appeared in the online political ad to stick up for the accusers in the Explorer case.

“The youth in this case, I don’t know who they are, but they don’t have a voice,” she said. “… The fact that (O’Connell) wanted to release the names is inappropriate.”

The Ackerson ad highlights O’Connell’s remarks to reporters last year when he said a former Scout should not be allowed to remain anonymous when filing a civil lawsuit against two former officers, who also face criminal charges over the allegations in the Explorer program.

Besides Estes, the ad uses TV clips from a WAVE 3 story and a debate between the two political rivals at the Louisville Forum. During that debate, Ackerson told audience members that O’Connell clearly wanted to reveal the accusers’ names and only reversed his position after a backlash.

“What happened in this town makes me ashamed, it should make all of us ashamed,” Ackerson said. “Kids were hurt.”

Read this: County attorney accused of ‘political stunt,’ he says 2 councilmen are breaking the law

O’Connell argued last year that the law was on the side of the city and the defendants.

“The playing field needs to be leveled,” O’Connell said after a Jefferson Circuit Court hearing on a Courier Journal motion to open a lawsuit filed by a former Scout identified only as N.C. who claimed he was sexually abused by two officers and that the police concealed it.

But O’Connell backpedaled that same day, saying that neither he nor Mayor Greg Fischer wanted to reveal former Explorer Scouts’ names. He said in a statement that his office works “tirelessly every day in the support of victims of sexual assault.”

Courier Journal, which typically does not name victims of sexual abuse in criminal cases, sought to unseal the case to have access to any additional filings made in the case, not for the purpose of identifying any plaintiff.

Since last year six civil suits have been filed alleging abuse or harassment by police officers in the Youth Explorer program. Five of those cases name either former police officers Kenneth Betts or Brandon Wood as defendants.

The latest suit, filed by a former Scout identified only as E.B., claims the program became a “sexually hostile environment” after Betts repeatedly asked the Scouts to send or accept nude photographs.

The suits also names as a defendant former Maj. Curtis Flaherty, who led the program as a lieutenant, alleging he was part of a cover-up.

All three have denied wrongdoing.

In another lawsuit, a former Scout identified only as B.L. claims Officer Brad Schuhmann manipulated her into having sex when she was under age 16.

Schuhmann, who was an adviser in the Explorer program, has been put on desk duty with his police powers suspended pending the completion of an internal investigation, though the police have declined to detail the nature of that inquiry.

O’Connell and Ackerson are scheduled to debate at an event hosted by the Metro Democratic Club at 7 p.m. inside the Keneseth Israel Congregation, 2531 Taylorsville Road.

Reporter Phillip M. Bailey can be reached at 502-582-4475 or pbailey@courierjournal.com. Support strong local journalism by subscribing today: www.courier-journal.com/philb.

Question 1:
Please tell us about yourself, your background and why you believe you are qualified to hold this office.

Please tell us about yourself, your references and experience answering why you believe you are the most qualified person to be in charge.

I have been a Metro Councilperson since 2009, which includes a progressive policy record of supporting raising the minimum wage, supporting labor, supporting Fairness, supporting the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and supporting economic and justice equality. As a litigation attorney for 17 years, which includes having a criminal law experience, my law practice is focused on civil litigation involving employee rights, discriminations, government whistleblowers, and injury matters.

I am not a prosecutor, but rather a policymaker, who will approach this office from a new perspective. With the new challenges we face, I recognize that we need a 21st century approach to the way we operate, both in the criminal and civil divisions. If you are happy with the way Louisville’s present legal system is working, then I’m not the candidate to vote for. If you want someone willing to bring effective changes, then I ask for your vote.

I have been a metropolitan councilor since 2009, which includes a register of progressive policies to raise the minimum wage, support work, justice, the Fund for Easy Access to Housing and support for equity in justice and the economy. I was a trial lawyer for 17 years, that includes experience with laws on crimes, discrimination, complaints against the government and personal injuries.

I am not a Prosecutor specifically, I am a formulator of laws, whose objective is to give the office a new perspective. With the challenges that we face today, I understand that we need a more modern way to operate, both in our criminal division and in the civil division. If you are happy with the way the system and the legal representative of Louisville are working, then I am not the candidate for your vote. On the other hand, if you want someone to make effective changes, I invite you to vote for me.

Question 2:
Given caseloads and financial resources, what role do you think prosecutors can play in reducing jail overcrowding?

According to the amount of processes and financial resources, what role do you think the prosecutor can have to reduce prison overcrowding?

At present, it is predicted that Kentucky’s jails and prisons will be at maximum capacity in mid-2019. That’s a social and economic crisis. We must abandon the mentality that we can do our way out of our criminal justice problems. We need a more holistic mindset for the minor crimes that the County Attorney’s office handles, including a more restorative justice approach to how our prosecutors handle minor cases and avoiding convictions with more diversion programs to help offenders turn their lives around. Jailing for minor offenses neither helps the overcrowding situation nor does it help reform the offender. Our prosecutors need more discretion to deal with matters on an individual case by case basis, taking into account the totality of the issues and circumstances,

Currently, Kentucky prisons and prisons are projected to be at their maximum capacity by mid-2019. That is a social and economic crisis. We must abandon the mentality in which we think that all our judicial problems are solved with jail. We need a more holistic view, modifying the attitude toward minor crimes on the part of the County Attorney’s Office, that includes an approach to more restorative justice, thinking about how our prosecutors handle minor crimes, modifying sentences for a diverse range of programs that help offenders to return to social life. Imprisoning for minor offenses does not help to overcome the situation of overpopulation in prisons and does not help reform the aggressor either.

Question 3:
What role can the county attorney’s office play in reducing caseloads?

The County Attorney’s office has over 400 employees, including over 100 attorneys. It handles matters ranging from traffic cases, to misdemeanor crimes, to juvenile cases, to child support, to domestic violence, to civil litigation, to providing legal advice to the Metro Council and various Metro departments. It’s a large and diverse office. Reduction of caseloads would need to be done in varying ways depending on the area of ​​practice. Traffic cases and non-violent misdemeanor cases need to be to fun programs to help the offenders. Resources need to be shifted to areas of backlogs, and staff needs to focus on more than just one area of ​​the law. The office needs a full independent audit to ensure that we are maximizing the resources and funds expended.

The County Attorney’s office has about 400 employees, including more than 100 attorneys. They handle all matters ranging from trafficking, misdemeanors, juvenile cases, child support, domestic violence, civil litigation, providing legal aid to the Metropolitan Council and several departments of the municipality. It is a wide and diverse office. The reduction in the processes must be done according to the practice area. Trafficking processes and non-violent minor crimes must be sent to various programs where the aggressor is helped. Resources should be focused on areas such as dammed work, and the work team needs to focus on more than one area of ​​the law. The office needs a complete independent audit to ensure maximum use of funds and resources.

Question 4:
How can the county attorney actively pursue justice when high caseloads encourage plea bargains?

How can the County Attorney achieve effective justice when the processes promote applications for penalty reductions?

We need to encourage plea bargains, not avoid them, especially in cases when we can avoid plaguing a person’s record in a manner that keeps them from getting to job or qualifying for housing. Violent offenders and career criminals need to be locked up, and jail space needs to be kept available for such persons. However, nonviolent and minor level offenders need to avoid jail and be placed in situations to help them and encourage them to get their lives back on track. To achieve success in dealing with our new crime problems, we must embrace new diversion programs and new restorative justice models. We must let prosecutors have discretion in handling their caseloads, which includes helping people who have committed minor crimes due to their circumstances.

We need to incentivize requests for rebates, not avoid them, especially in cases where we can avoid affecting the registration of a person in such a way that they can get a job or qualify for a house. Violent offenders and career criminals must be insured, and we need space available in prisons for those people. However, minor and non-violent aggressors could avoid jail and be placed in situations that help them to get back on track in their lives normally. To reach the goal of dealing with new problems that come with new crimes, we must welcome new and much more diverse programs and new models of restorative justice. We must allow our prosecutors to have discretion in the management of their processes,

Question 5:
What circumstances do you think prosecutors should consider in making recommendations to judges about setting bail or bond?

What circumstances do you think prosecutors should consider when making recommendations to judges on bail and arrest?

At present, Assistant County Attorney prosecutors are instructed to object to any and all bond reductions. This model of handling things hurts the system, in that when you object to everything then the sincerity of the objection is lost when the objection has a legitimate basis. I believe that the requirement of bonds in minor nonviolent offenses makes the situation worse, in that it often requires persons of limited means to come up with money that could be better used for their circumstances or their family needs. If they are unable to come up with such funds, then the limited jail spaces and resources get used, when they are better reserved for other persons. I believe that most non-violent or minor offenses should not require a bond.

At the moment, the assistant prosecutors of the County Prosecutor’s Office are instructed to object to each and every one of the arrest reductions. This way of handling things hurts the system, because in this way any sincerity is lost when it is objected with a legitimate basis. I believe that the requirement of arrest in minor cases or non-violent aggression makes the situation worse, sometimes it means that people with limited resources have to look for money that could be better used for the needs of their families. If they do not have those funds, then the limited spaces and prison resources are used with them, when these should be reserved for other people in serious cases. I believe that most nonviolent cases or minor offenses should not require an arrest.

Question 6:
What circumstances do you think prosecutors should take into consideration in making recommendations to judges about alternative sentencing?

What circumstances do you think prosecutors should take into account when making recommendations to judges about alternative sentencing?

Alternative sentencing should be what is strived for whenever possible and in most cases of misdemeanors and / or nonviolent offenses it should be the presumed path, unless something would require traditional paths of sentencing. There are a number of factors that should be considered in making recommendations for alternative sentencing, including the type of the offense charged, the impact upon a victim from the offense, the chance for helping the charged party, make amends for the crime, and helping the charged party to resume being a productive member of our community.

The alternative sentences should be what is sought as long as the crimes are minor and / or are non-violent offenses, I think that should be the way. Unless something requires using traditional sentencing paths. There are a considerable number of factors that should be considered when making recommendations for an alternative sentence, which include the type of charge imposed on the accused party, the impact of the offense on the victim, the opportunity to help the accused to amend the crime and the way in which the accused party is helped to become a productive member for our community.

Question 7:
What reforms or steps do you believe the County Attorney’s office could institute that would improve police accountability?

What reforms or steps do you think the County Attorney’s office could establish to improve police accountability?

When officers are being investigated by the Public Integrity Unit, a policy needs to be implemented that a resignation by the officer does not conclude the investigation and allow avoidance of possible filed charges against said officer. Additionally, information known that reflects poorly and negatively upon an officer’s character or fitness to serve in law enforcement needs to be made public to avoid situations where an officer resigns from one law enforcement agency, due to problems with character or fitness, is able to be hired by another agency which lacks knowledge of the problems related to that officer.

When police officers are investigated by the Public Integrity Unit, a policy must be implemented so that the officer’s resignation does not end the investigation avoiding the charges against said officer. Additionally, information related to the bad or negative character of an officer that does not fit to serve in the forces of the law must be made public; In this way we will avoid situations in which an officer renounces any of the forces of the law for those reasons and is still able to enlist in another agency without knowledge of the problems related to that officer.

Question 8:
Do you support the restoration of voting rights for formerly incarcerated individuals who have served their full sentence?

Do you support restoring the right to vote for individuals who have been incarcerated and paid their sentence total?

Yes, I support the restoration of voting rights for formerly incarcerated individuals.

Yes, I support that the right to vote is restored for individuals who have served their sentence.

Question 9:
What is your stance on the ordinance recently passed by the Metro Council that clarifies immigration enforcement guidelines?

What is your position on the ordinance recently passed by the Metro Council that clarifies the guidelines for compliance with the immigration law?

As a Metro Councilmember, I voted for the Ordinance. I do not believe that it is our community’s job to enforce federal law and even the appearance that we are, sends the wrong message to our immigrant populations, regardless of their legal status.

As a member of the Metropolitan Council, I voted for the ordinance. I do not believe that it is the work of our community to impose a federal law and although we apparently do it, we send the wrong message to our immigrant population, regardless of their legal status.

source: http://kftc.org/

]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/kftc-questionaire-ackerson-answers/feed/4259Metropolitan Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 32 for Brent Ackersonhttps://www.ackerson2018.com/metropolitan-fraternal-order-of-police-lodge-32-for-brent-ackerson/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=metropolitan-fraternal-order-of-police-lodge-32-for-brent-ackerson
https://www.ackerson2018.com/metropolitan-fraternal-order-of-police-lodge-32-for-brent-ackerson/#respondFri, 27 Apr 2018 10:43:40 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=246We are humbled to announce that the Metropolitan Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 32 has voted to endorse Brent Ackerson for County Attorney. ]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/metropolitan-fraternal-order-of-police-lodge-32-for-brent-ackerson/feed/0246Shively FOP 17 Endorses Brent Ackersonhttps://www.ackerson2018.com/shively-fop-17-endorses-brent-ackerson/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=shively-fop-17-endorses-brent-ackerson
https://www.ackerson2018.com/shively-fop-17-endorses-brent-ackerson/#respondFri, 27 Apr 2018 10:40:42 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=244We are pleased to inform you that the Shively Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 17 voted to endorse Brent Ackerson for County Attorney. We look forward to making a difference along these brave men and women.]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/shively-fop-17-endorses-brent-ackerson/feed/0244St. Matthews FOP 31 Endorsementhttps://www.ackerson2018.com/st-matthews-fop-31-endorsement/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=st-matthews-fop-31-endorsement
https://www.ackerson2018.com/st-matthews-fop-31-endorsement/#respondFri, 27 Apr 2018 10:37:34 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=241Brent Ackerson is humbled by the recent endorsement of the St Matthew’s Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 31.]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/st-matthews-fop-31-endorsement/feed/0241Louisville FOP Lodge 32 Endorses Brent Ackersonhttps://www.ackerson2018.com/louisville-fop-lodge-32-endorses-brent-ackerson/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=louisville-fop-lodge-32-endorses-brent-ackerson
https://www.ackerson2018.com/louisville-fop-lodge-32-endorses-brent-ackerson/#respondThu, 26 Apr 2018 03:47:03 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=232Brent Ackerson for Jefferson County Attorney is proud to have the endorsement of Louisville’s Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 32.

]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/louisville-fop-lodge-32-endorses-brent-ackerson/feed/0232Louisville Sheriff Deputy Fraternal Order of Police Endorsementhttps://www.ackerson2018.com/louisville-sheriff-deputy-fraternal-order-of-police-endorsement/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=louisville-sheriff-deputy-fraternal-order-of-police-endorsement
https://www.ackerson2018.com/louisville-sheriff-deputy-fraternal-order-of-police-endorsement/#respondThu, 26 Apr 2018 03:31:36 +0000https://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=229Brent Ackerson is proud of the endorsement of Deputy Sheriff’s Lodge No. 25’s endorsement for Jefferson County Attorney. These hard worker, brave men and women who protect the courthouse and the community have humbled the campaign with their support.

*for extra sourced points throughout the video turn on subtitles. Sources of the statements made in the subtitles are available among other articles at https://www.ackerson2018.com and are listed below.

A transcript is posted below as well. This was machine generated and may contain technical errors.

Extend services out into the community via satellite locations, to include after hours and weekend hours.

Engage liaisons to interact with various segments and demographics of the community in order to work to rebuild positive relationships with the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office.

Establish a Jefferson County Attorney’s Office Advisory Commission, consisting of various representatives of the community, including prosecutors, defense counsel, Judges, law enforcement, community activists, and ministers, to discuss areas of operations that need improvements and suggests changes to the Jefferson County Attorney’s operations.

Work to restore positive working relationships between the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office and the Judges, Attorneys, and government officials.

Increase the chances and opportunities for low level non-violent offenders to go to diversion programs and avoid criminal records.

Put an emphasis on youth programs in an effort to stem the violence in this community.

Work with families of children experiencing excessive truancy problems.

Councilman Ackerson said, “We’ve had the same County Attorney at the helm for 10 years now. Things are not getting better, but rather getting worse. New ideas and new approaches are needed to try to stem the crime and violence in this community. It’s time for a change in direction of the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office.”

Glenda Bradshaw, the former head of criminal prosecutions for the Jefferson County attorney’s office, filed a wrongful termination lawsuit Monday against her former boss, alleging that he created a hostile work environment, discriminated against her because of her sex and retaliated against her for actions she took.

Bradshaw also charges in her suit, filed in Jefferson Circuit Court, that County Attorney Mike O’Connell pressured some of his assistants to donate to his election campaign “or fear his wrath.”

“It was well-known through the county attorney’s office that defendant O’Connell kept track of who did or did not contribute to his campaign,” the suit alleges. “In addition, defendant O’Connell was well known to summon the campaign contribution list if he was going to take an employment action within his office.”

Bradshaw “made reports” of the alleged pressure to donate, according to the suit.

In an interview Monday at the office of her attorney, Thomas Clay, she said those reports were in the form of concerns shared with Julie Hardesty, O’Connell’s first assistant. Bradshaw said she did not know what, if anything, came of her complaints.

O’Connell, a Democrat, was appointed county attorney in August 2008 to complete the term of Irv Maze, who was appointed a Jefferson circuit court judge. He is a candidate for a full term in the May Democratic primary.

State election-finance records show that O’Connell had raised nearly $167,000 through December, including dozens of contributions from employees in the county attorney’s office.

There is nothing illegal or improper about employees contributing to a public official’s election campaign, as long the donations are voluntary.

Bradshaw said in an interview last week that she plans to run against O’Connell, citing what she said is low office morale and her belief that she is better qualified.

In response to the lawsuit, O’Connell said in a statement Monday that “people are smart enough to realize these allegations come from someone who was smart and calculating enough to lose her job, hire an attorney, do five media interviews and launch a countywide campaign against her former boss, all in a 24-hour span.”

O’Connell’s statement also characterized as “ridiculous and absurd” Bradshaw’s accusations of a hostile work environment and sexual discrimination. He noted last week that Hardesty and three division directors all are women.

“She’s filed her suit and it gives her side of the story. It shouldn’t shock anyone that when we file our response it will be a VERY different story,” O’Connell said in the statement. “This was and still is a case of a disgruntled and well-paid employee not doing the job she was given. Except in this case it involved the public’s safety.”

The statement did not specifically address Bradshaw’s allegations about campaign contributions. Bill Patteson, O’Connell’s spokesman, said he would have no comment on that issue.

Bradshaw, a prosecutor for almost 25 years — 16 of them with the county attorney’s office — was fired a week ago after O’Connell said she had failed to enforce a policy designed to track Louisville Metro Police officers who failed to appear in court, and to report those absences to the department.

Under the policy, Bradshaw was supposed to ensure that the approximately 70 prosecutors she supervised documented officers’ court absences and the reasons for them. But she failed to do so, O’Connell said.

The system of reporting absent officers was instituted by O’Connell in response to a Courier-Journal series last March revealing that more than 600 felony defendants were set free in 2007 because officers failed to appear for district court hearings.

Prosecutors initially tracked officers’ court absences after the articles appeared, including nearly 200 instances of missed appearances in just the last two weeks of March. However, the reports dropped off dramatically as the year wore on, with only 20 absences reported between August and mid-December.

Two Courier-Journal reporters interviewed O’Connell and Bradshaw on Dec. 17 about issues including the reports, and also obtained copies of the reports.

Bradshaw claims in the lawsuit that after the interview O’Connell engaged in a 10-minute “verbal assault” against her, calming down only when a male division chief came in to the room to discuss the issue, and that she was “subjected to outbursts of anger” from O’Connell on other occasions.

The day after the interview, the newspaper asked O’Connell whether the sharp decline in reported absences was the result of better court attendance by police or a failure by prosecutors to log officers who didn’t appear. He responded that while officers’ attendance had indeed improved, prosecutors “weren’t keeping score” of officers’ non-attendance as they should have been.

That conclusion ultimately resulted in Bradshaw’s termination.

Bradshaw’s suit also claims a violation of the state Whistleblower Act, alleging she was fired after telling Hardesty that O’Connell had discriminated against her, created a hostile work environment and needed anger-control management.

According to the lawsuit, Hardesty acknowledged O’Connell’s inappropriate behavior but stated, “I do not know what to do about it.”

Patteson, the office spokesman, said Hardesty would have no comment because of her potential involvement in the case as a witness.

O’Connell has charged that Yates, who is representing a former Scout who alleges he was sexually assaulted by two former officers, has a conflict of interest. The two exchanged bitter words during a hearing on the county attorney’s motion to disqualify Yates, D-25th, from the case.

Three years ago, during O’Connell’s last re-election campaign, the county attorney wrote a letter to the council that called on Councilman David James, D-6th, to recuse himself from voting because he was holding two sworn offices as a council member and as a University of Louisville police officer.

James, who eventually resigned from the campus police department, said at the time that O’Connell’s legal opinion was retribution for him refusing to donate to the county attorney’s re-election campaign and supporting his opponent in the 2014 primary contest.

O’Connell has served as county attorney — which prosecutes misdemeanor cases and acts as the city’s legal representative — since first being appointed to the position in 2008. He has a legal career that spans four decades, including a stint as a Jefferson District Court judge from 1980 to 1987 and on the circuit bench from 1987 to 1990.

According to his official website, he has been at the forefront of prosecutions in the areas of drunk driving and domestic violence.

Ackerson, who is an attorney, has a law practice that covers personal injury, civil rights, whistleblower law and employment and business maters. He was first elected to the council in 2008, where he has been an outspoken representative particularly in favor of increased spending on infrastructure needs, affordable housing and public safety.

Reporter Phillip M. Bailey can be reached at 502-582-4475 or pbailey@courier-journal.com.

]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/louisville-corruption-review-focuses-on-oconnell/feed/062Mike O’Connell, Jefferson County Attorney, and the Price of “Loyalty”.https://www.ackerson2018.com/mike-oconnell-jefferson-county-attorney-and-the-price-of-loyalty/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mike-oconnell-jefferson-county-attorney-and-the-price-of-loyalty
https://www.ackerson2018.com/mike-oconnell-jefferson-county-attorney-and-the-price-of-loyalty/#respondSat, 07 Apr 2018 01:06:54 +0000http://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=60Continue reading Mike O’Connell, Jefferson County Attorney, and the Price of “Loyalty”.→]]>by Michael Stevens
“It is money, money, money! Not ideas, not principles, but
money that reigns supreme in American politics.”
Robert C. Byrd
A recent op-ed from the Courier-Journal discussed how elected government
officials in Jefferson County have expected their employees to contribute
financially to their re-election coffers. For example, the Jefferson County
Attorney’s office seems to have a long history of expected contributions from
the attorneys working in that office going back as far as Bruce Miller.
Basically, money has been contributed over the years by attorneys employed
at the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office to assist their boss’s election efforts.
A practice that is not new, not novel, not regulated, and worse yet apparently
not acknowledged beyond a simple denial by the current occupant of that
political office – Mike O’Connell.
The Courier-Journal calls attention to this practice and asks its readers if this is what we want or expect from a County Attorney. Whether called campaign contributions or tokens of employee “loyalty”, should it continue?
As an Army Judge Advocate and Army Officer occupying a position of trust and public service, we were held to a standard even higher than the criminal and ethical codes. Accepting money from
those who work for you was and is absolutely prohibited. We were expected to even avoid even the “appearance of impropriety”.
The Jefferson County Attorney’s Office has a large staff. A very large staff with over 400 attorneys.
All of us have read the stories on how difficult it has been for government lawyers to pay their
4/6/2018 Mike O’Connell, Jefferson County Attorney, and the Price of “Loyalty”. | Kentucky Court Report
http://kycourtreport.com/mike-oconnell-jefferson-county-attorney-and-the-price-of-loyalty/ 2/13
school loans and raise a family on their government salaries with some even delivering pizza on their own time in the evenings.
Well, the Courier-Journal has issued the challenge and concluded its opionion-editorial piece with the following:
Sometimes the Courier-Journal irritates me with the reactionary tone of their editorials and even their stories. However, the position that the news media occupies as the “Fourth Estate” aka the
“press” can never be understated. And although everyone seems to fawn over the new digital age, there is just some power and authority found in the written word on a piece of paper that is not found in audio or video.
You may not always like or appreciate the stories, but most of us will acknowledge the value they provide in accountability with the gathering of facts, interviews of those involved, and a
marshaling of all that has been accumulated with a conclusion and opinion which you can either agree or disagree. Those of us who blog part time owe a debt to the hard work that it takes to uncover these stories which allow bloggers like myself to throw in out two cents worth of opinion.Thank you.
Here is the op-ed piece. Hopefully, the Courier will keep it available on-line for some time.
Mike O’Connell’s Loyal Employees Mr. O’Connell can deny he seeks money from employees. But he can’t deny the appearance that employees feel pressured to give.
His current fundraising may not violate the law. It may skirt the Metro ethics ordinance.
But like so many things in politics, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
So why not limit contributions from employees? Or just stop taking them?
That way his employees could devote their full loyalty to the public and keep all of their hardearned paychecks for doing so.
“
Ah, for the good old days of Jefferson County politics where the “2 percent” club flourished in
local offices and employees didn’t have to wonder how much to donate to the election fund of
the boss.
Former Jefferson County Attorney J. Bruce Miller called his request for 2 percent of
employees’ pay the “Assistant County Attorney Voluntary Fund.”
“
4/6/2018 Mike O’Connell, Jefferson County Attorney, and the Price of “Loyalty”. | Kentucky Court Report
http://kycourtreport.com/mike-oconnell-jefferson-county-attorney-and-the-price-of-loyalty/ 3/13
Posted on Friday, February 7, 2014News: “Judicial Branch implements… COAM 2014:06 – Court of Appeals M…
Click on the above heading for the rest of the CJ Post.
Categories: Ethics, Government, Opinions and Editorials
Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic. And former Jefferson County Sheriff Jim Greene made it easy by tucking envelopes into the paycheck of each employee that bore their names and a calculation of 2 percent of their pay. But times have changed.
Today, it seems heavy-handed, if not outright wrong, for elected bosses to suggest employees must donate a fixed amount for the privilege of keeping their jobs.
So Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell has come up with a new euphemism for
employee support, calling it “loyalty.”
“I tell people that I hire that I seek competency, diligence and loyalty,” he told The CourierJournal’s
Andrew Wolfson. “And loyalty means they support me and this office in all things we
do, including my election.”
His staff of nearly 400, including 120 prosecutors, has been amazingly loyal, according to
campaign finance records of Mr. O’Connell, a Democrat who is running for re-election to his
second full term.
Nearly half of the $201,000 Mr. O’Connell has amassed since his last election in 2010 came
from assistant county attorneys and other employees in his office.
And this was for a race in which he didn’t even have an opponent until lawyer Karen
Faulkner stepped forward one day before last week’s filing deadline]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/mike-oconnell-jefferson-county-attorney-and-the-price-of-loyalty/feed/060Elections: Jefferson County Attorney Race; from Courier Journal “O’Connell and Faulkner spar in County Attorney debate”https://www.ackerson2018.com/elections-jefferson-county-attorney-race-from-courier-journal-oconnell-and-faulkner-spar-in-county-attorney-debate/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=elections-jefferson-county-attorney-race-from-courier-journal-oconnell-and-faulkner-spar-in-county-attorney-debate
https://www.ackerson2018.com/elections-jefferson-county-attorney-race-from-courier-journal-oconnell-and-faulkner-spar-in-county-attorney-debate/#respondSat, 07 Apr 2018 01:05:12 +0000http://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=58Continue reading Elections: Jefferson County Attorney Race; from Courier Journal “O’Connell and Faulkner spar in County Attorney debate”→]]>

Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell and democratic challenger Karen Faulkner sparred on a variety of issues, including experience, assistant county attorneys running for judge and juvenile justice reform, as part of the Louisville Bar Association’s democratic nominee debate Friday. O’Connell used the debate to pounce on Faulkner’s inexperience as an attorney, while Faulkner countered with claims of unethical behavior within his office. “This was a great opportunity for folks to attend and make their own judgments,” O’Connell said.

* * *

When asked by Sonka about her inexperience as an attorney, Faulkner touted her time as both a public defender and a private practice attorney. Faulker, who is an actress in addition to being a defense lawyer in private practice, was admitted to the bar in 2005.

* * *

“His experience is the wrong kind of experience,” Faulkner said of O’Connell, citing what she claimed to be questionable practices within his office.

* * *

Faulkner accused him of trying to stack the coming judicial races with his assistants and noted they are obligated to contribute to his campaign. O’Connell shook off the claims, which were addressed later in questions, and touted his experience.

* * *

Sonka asked both candidates about O’Connell’s ruling that allows his assistants to run for judge while maintaining their position.

O’Connell told the audience of more than 100 people that allowing his assistants to run for judge deepens the candidate pool and provides young attorneys with more opportunities.

Faulkner said the practice creates an unethical atmosphere in courtrooms. “County attorneys are sitting, handling cases in courtroom where they’ll be a judge,” she said. “Ethical conflicts will arise.”

When asked about assistants contributing to his campaign, O’Connell said it is a necessary measure. “This is a political office,” he said. “Politics require money.”

Faulkner told the audience that she would never demand her staff contribute to her campaign.

Click on the entire story (if still available on line at the Courier Journal).

Two Louisville police officers have been accused of sexually assaulting a teenage boy participating in the police’s Explorer Program. Rachel Aretakis/Courier-Journal

Buy Photo

(Photo: Matt Stone/The C-J)

Police did not thoroughly document an investigation into whether former Officer Kenneth Betts had improper contact with a 16-year-old Explorer Scout, according to records in a criminal sex abuse case against him and another former officer.

Also, at least one former police investigator who talked to the girl has questioned whether then-Lt. Curtis Flaherty should have been directing the 2013 investigation into her sexual harassment claims at all.

The department’s Public Integrity Unit did not record audio of the interview with the girl and her parents, the records show. And no police notes from the interview are known to exist, either.

Betts and another former officer, Brandon Wood, were indicted this year on several charges of sex abuse in connection with their time as advisers in the Explorer Scout program run by police. Both have pleaded not guilty.

The investigators should have at the very least documented the interview, said retired Capt. Buddy Dumeyer, who was the first commander of the department’s Public Integrity Unit. He also said the investigation shouldn’t have been led by Flaherty, who was head of the integrity unit but was also in charge of the Explorer program for youths interested in law enforcement.

The girl’s mother alleges that Flaherty urged the family to keep quiet about the situation, according to court records.

“If it was something I was involved in, Explorers or anything else, I would say it is best that I recuse myself from being involved in that investigation and let my boss oversee it so that there was no potential conflict of interest,” Dumeyer said.

Police Chief Steve Conrad’s office declined to comment for this story when contacted by email. Louisville police spokesman Dwight Mitchell said the Courier-Journal’s questions “would require a response that would be premature for us to make” because of the criminal case against Betts and Wood.

Former Explorers in the program have told the Courier-Journal that Flaherty and Betts had a close relationship. The two had known each other since Betts was in the Explorer program, and Flaherty wrote a recommendation letter when Betts joined the force in 2006.

Attorney Lee Sitlinger, who is representing Flaherty, said in an Oct. 14 email that he had not reviewed the documents in the criminal case but that his client was always careful to recuse himself from situations where a potential conflict existed.

Sitlinger said Flaherty — who retired Aug. 1 at the rank of major — took immediate action upon learning of the girl’s allegation.

Attorney David Yates, who has filed a civil suit on behalf of a former Explorer alleging that the police tried to conceal sex abuse in the program, said the documents show Flaherty is entrenched in a cover-up.

“It falls right in line with what I’ve been saying for months that very bad people abused their authority and hurt children, and other people helped them cover it up,” said Yates, who is also the Metro Council president.

When the mother of the teen was re-interviewed by police in 2016, she said Betts had sent her daughter photos of himself “half-dressed” and that the photos were “just kind of sexual-looking pictures.”

But because the 2013 interview was not documented or recorded, it is unknown “what questions may have been asked or what statements were made” by the girl or her mother at the time, according to the court records.

The three officers at the 2013 interview, which occurred in the family’s home, were former integrity unit Sgts. Jacqueline Smith and John Polin and Officer Julie Schmidt, who was an adviser in the Explorer program.

Smith and Polin, who now works in Mayor Greg Fischer’s security detail, said they didn’t record the interview. Smith told investigators last year that she probably took notes on the interview but couldn’t locate them.

Polin referred all questions to the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Smith and Schmidt, who has since retired, could not be reached for comment.

In the documents, Schmidt said she attended the interview with the female Explorer at the girl’s request. She told investigators last year that she remembered the girl being very upset about the texts, which Schmidt said included Betts asking the girl to meet him behind a church.

Schmidt said she didn’t remember anybody taking notes.

Dumeyer said that during his time as commander of the Public Integrity Unit, investigators always documented their interviews in some way once a serious allegation was made. He said there were exceptions to recording them, such as when officers are working with uncooperative witnesses or victims at their home, but that written notes were used as a substitute.

“In almost every interview our standard practice was to record all interviews of potential witnesses and victims,” Dumeyer said. “You generally almost always take notes because I can never remember not taking notes.”

Smith, the former integrity unit sergeant, also told investigators that she thought in hindsight that Flaherty wasn’t the best person to make any decisions about the investigation, according to court documents.

Dumeyer told the Courier-Journal it would have been in the police department’s best interest for Flaherty to have turned that initial interview over to a supervisor.

“On that particular part I’m just going to be real frank with you, I would have talked to my boss. … And I think my major would have said, ‘Buddy you’re out,’ ” he said. “And I think in that type of situation you want to have eyes and investigators looking at it who have no connection to the program itself to again avoid any potential conflict of interest.”

Smith, Polin and Schmidt all told investigators last October that after the interview with the girl, they found the situation “highly inappropriate” but didn’t think it rose to the level of a crime, according to the documents.

Smith said she informed Flaherty of the situation after leaving the girl’s home and that she thinks there was a meeting with Flaherty a few days later. Smith says she cannot recall anything discussed at the meeting, only that it was decided the case be forwarded to the Professional Standards Unit, court records show.

In July 2013, Chief Steve Conrad opened a Professional Standards Unit investigation into the girl’s allegation.

Smith, whose son was in the Explorer program, also told investigators last year that she had heard rumors about Betts having inappropriate contact with other Explorers but couldn’t remember if that was before or after interviewing the girl.

Polin told the police investigators he was “surprised to learn there was not a case file prepared for the incident involving Officer Betts” and the female Scout.

Schmidt told investigators she had heard rumors that Officer Wood would have parties at his house and invited Explorers. She said she never brought those rumors to Flaherty’s attention.

The court documents say Schmidt couldn’t recall hearing any rumors about Betts last year, but police noted that she admitted to hearing rumors about “inappropriate conduct” between Betts and past Explorers in an earlier interview into the teenage girl’s allegations with the standards unit.

Other law enforcement officials who spoke with integrity unit investigators said they heard similar talk about Betts and Wood, according to court records.

Richmond Police Officer Casey Scott, a former Explorer, told Louisville investigators he had heard about Betts having an inappropriate sexual encounter with an Explorer.

And an unidentified Louisville officer, who is only identified as an officer in the 5th Division, said there were rumors of Betts trying to “hook up with an Explorer,” according to court records.

In April 2014, Conrad closed the investigation into the girl’s allegation, a month after Betts submitted his resignation. “No further action need be taken,” Conrad said in an internal memo.

Betts later became a reserve officer for Audubon Park Police and was a code enforcement officer for the city of Rolling Hills. He no longer works for either one and was fired by Rolling Hills in April after the abuse allegations became public.

Reporter Phillip M. Bailey can be reached at 502-582-4475 or pbailey@courier-journal.com.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) – Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer has said multiple times in recent months that he first learned of sexual abuse allegations in the police department’s Explorer program in October 2016 – just before the scandal became public knowledge.

But in a deposition this week, Metro Police Chief Steve Conrad said he first told Fischer’s chief of staff about the allegations of sex abuse in the police mentoring program in 2013 or 2014, when former Officer Kenneth Betts was under investigation for his involvement in the matter.

While questioned under oath on Tuesday, Conrad said he twice talked with Ellen Hesen, Fischer’s chief of staff, about the investigation into Betts at that time.

Conrad told attorney Thomas Clay he spoke with Hesen “during the beginning of the investigation” in 2013 and near the end, when Betts resigned in 2014.

Hesen did not tell the chief whether she passed along that information to the mayor, Conrad said during the deposition.

Clay said Conrad’s testimony appears to raise “a glaring inconsistency” as to when Fischer was informed of the allegations against the department.

Conrad’s deposition was completed as part of a whistleblower lawsuit filed by LMPD Lt. Jimmy Harper, who claims he was demoted as retaliation for expressing concerns about the department’s management.

In July of 2013, an internal investigation was launched concerning allegations that Betts sent a 16-year-old girl shirtless pictures of himself and asked her to “make out.”

During that investigation, a male teenager told police investigators that Betts offered him money for sex.

There was never an investigation into what the male teen said, and Conrad closed the Betts case “by exception” when the officer resigned in 2014. Conrad wrote in a memo that “no further action was needed.”

In October, while under oath during a deposition in the same case, Fischer testified he had not been briefed on the status of LMPD’s investigation other than to say he was aware it was “ongoing.”

In March, Chris Poynter, a spokesman for Fischer, told WFPL that Fischer “didn’t know the full extent (of the allegations) until the lawsuit was filed that month.

On Tuesday, Conrad said he has met with Hesen two or three times since the investigation began in 2016 and talked with her on the phone about it “dozens” of times.

And Conrad said he met with Fischer himself in person once about the investigation in late 2016, though he did not remember the exact date. Hesen was the only other person present, Conrad testified.

The meeting with the mayor, Conrad said, occurred before Fischer suspended the Youth Explorer program in March, after a former Scout had alleged in a lawsuit that he was raped by two officers and police concealed it.

Poynter said he was unsure which investigation Fischer was being asked about when he said he had not talked with LMPD – the initial 2013 investigation into Betts or the ongoing criminal investigation which began in 2016.

He referred further comment on the mayor’s deposition to the Jefferson County Attorney’s office, which is representing the city in lawsuits filed by alleged victims of sex abuse.

A spokesman for the county attorney’s office did not return a phone message and text seeking comment on Wednesday.

Clay said he was planning to take Hesen’s deposition next.

In March, Fischer told reporters he wanted to “know is what the truth is, and then we will hold people accountable all along the way,” Fischer said. “Where the chips are going to fall, they’re going to fall.”

So far, four lawsuit have been filed against the city and police by alleged victims of sex abuse or misconduct by officers.

In addition, both Betts and former Officer Brandon Wood have been indicted on sex abuse charges.

Jewish Hospital, Louisville, has turned the tables on two lawyers who filed nearly 100 lawsuits against it.The hospital is suing the two attorneys, claiming they never intended to take the cases to trial and were using publicity surrounding the lawsuits to force settlements.

Jeff Polson, spokesman for Jewish Hospital, said the lawsuit against the two lawyers, Joseph White and Michael O’Connell, is aimed at holding them accountable for “false allegations” they made.

“They were given multiple opportunities to substantiate their claims in court and they failed to do so,” Polson said.

White and O’Connell filed 96 lawsuits against Jewish Hospital, with the bulk of the cases involving allegations that patients were infected by a bacteria called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

The two attorneys alleged that Jewish Hospital knew of the infections and did not warn patients, did surgery and housed patients in unclean rooms. Jewish Hospital denied the allegations and 84 of the 96 suits have been dismissed.

Gary Weiss, who represents White and his law firm, said the lawyers have done nothing wrong.

“The fact that you lose a case doesn’t mean that you didn’t have good cause to file it,” Weiss said.

James Grohmann, an attorney for O’Connell, said the lawsuit against the two attorneys should have never been filed.

White and O’Connell met with their clients in December, telling them they were withdrawing from the cases because they couldn’t afford to continue. The remaining cases will be dismissed if new lawyers are not found. — by the Associated Press

After initially saying Thursday that former Explorer Scouts who allege abuse in the police youth program should not be allowed to remain anonymous, County Attorney Mike O’Connell backtracked later in the day, issuing a statement that said neither he nor Mayor Greg Fischer want to reveal their names.

O’Connell told reporters after a Jefferson Circuit Court hearing Thursday morning that for fairness, plaintiffs should be identified because police officers who are defendants are identified by name.

“The playing field needs to be leveled,” said O’Connell, who is representing the city in an effort initiated by the Courier-Journal to open a lawsuit filed by a former Scout identified only as N.C., who claimed he was sexually abused by two officers and that the police department concealed it.

But later O’Connell’s office issued a statement saying: “I want to be clear that neither I nor the city want any abuse victims’ identity to be made public” and any decision on that would be made by the court.

“My staff and I work tirelessly every day in the support of victims of sexual assault. Our pleadings, from the very start of this case, have demonstrated this commitment to protecting victims,” O’Connell said in the statement.

Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman delayed until May 3 her ruling on a motion by the Courier-Journal to unseal the March 8 lawsuit, which was filed by attorney David Yates, who has said he has talked to other former Scouts who said they were abused.

McDonald-Burkman said she wants to hear arguments on whether the state law cited in sealing the lawsuit is unconstitutional.

The law says if a suit is filed alleging an act of child sexual assault or abuse occurred more than five years prior to the date of the lawsuit, the complaint shall be immediately sealed and all filings in the case shall remain sealed if the defendant wins the case and wants it to remain confidential. The only exception is if a higher court orders the case opened.

One of the Courier-Journal’s attorneys, Jon Fleischaker, said the law is invalid because it mandates that suits filed on behalf of alleged childhood sex-abuse victims automatically be sealed, without a hearing, which higher courts have said is not allowed.

The Courier-Journal, which typically does not name victims of sexual abuse in criminal cases, is seeking to unseal the lawsuit but not for the purpose of publishing the names of any plaintiffs, said Executive Editor Joel Christopher. The news organization wants the suit to be open to have access to any additional filings made in the case, Christopher said.

O’Connell said Thursday morning that N.C.’s case should be open because the allegations are serious and the public has a right to know about them. He told reporters afterward that the law cited by Yates in getting the suit sealed was intended to protect defendants, not alleged victims.

Yates, who is also president of the Metro Council, told McDonald-Burkman that he doesn’t necessarily think the statute is constitutional but that the identity of his client — and others he claims to represent — should be protected. Another circuit judge, Barry Willett, previously struck down the state law, but McDonald-Burkman said his decision is not binding in her courtroom.

“There is no public purpose in having them named and victimized again,” Yates said during the hearing.

The Courier-Journal obtained a copy of the suit and reported on its allegations, which include that Wood and Betts sexually abused N.C. in police cruisers and made pornographic videos of their alleged misconduct. The suit also names as defendants Maj. Curtis Flaherty, who supervised the Explorer program for youths interested in law enforcement; and the Boy Scouts of America, which helped run the program.

Last week WDRB Media also filed to unseal the lawsuit, saying it is adopting the Courier-Journal’s arguments that the public has a right to know.

Reporter Andrew Wolfson can be reached at 502-582-7189 or awolfson@courier-journal.com. Reporter Phillip M. Bailey can be reached at 502-582-4475 or pbailey@courier-journal.com.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the percentage fee Councilman Brent Ackerson said he took for the EMT case. This has been fixed.

Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell is once again locking horns with Metro Councilman David Yates by claiming he has a conflict of interest in a court case.

Only this time O’Connell is making the same accusation against Councilman Brent Ackerson, who will be his opponent in the Democratic primary for county attorney. If O’Connell prevails, the councilmen could lose out on hundreds of thousands in legal fees for representing two severely injured EMS workers.

The dust-up stems from a case in which Ackerson and Yates, who have separate private law firms, are suing an auto company on behalf of their clients after one of its employees — an alleged drunken driver — hit a city ambulance in a head-on collision during an emergency run.

The driver, who died in the crash, and the auto company had no assets, but the company did have a $1 million insurance policy.

In a motion filed in Jefferson Circuit Court on Wednesday, O’Connell’s office claims Ackerson and Yates should be barred from collecting legal fees from their clients. The county attorney says the council members are breaking state law, which carries a fine up to $5,000, that forbids local officials from being involved in a case in which the city has an interest.

But Ackerson and Yates assert that the suit was against the auto company, and that the city has no financial interest in the case beyond Louisville government’s wrecked ambulance vehicle.

“This is a political stunt by Mike to try to get me to look bad in the press and a retaliation by Mike against me for running against him,” said Ackerson, D-26th District.

Yates said O’Connell still has bad blood from their clash over the Explorer sex abuse scandal. O’Connell argued that Yates had a conflict of interest in that case because he couldn’t sue the city and stand to personally profit while serving on the council.

In January, Yates was disqualified by a judge from representing several former Scouts who allege they were sexually abused and harassed by Louisville police officers. He said the county attorney is using his public office to harm Yates’ private practice.

“For them to challenge the fees, I think anyone who is paying attention will understand there are ill motives here and that this is a political play to try and tarnish an opponent,” Yates, D-25th, said Friday. “There’s been no love loss between me and O’Connell’s office since I challenged his reasoning with regards to the victims of child sex abuse.”

Metro Councilman Brent Ackerson speaks during a press conference with members of the Democratic Caucus about current legislation in the Kentucky General Assembly and the “War On Louisville”. March 2, 2017 (Photo: By Michael Clevenger, C-J)

The Louisville government spent about $1.7 million on workers’ compensation, medical care, lost wages and other costs for the two EMTs, John Morgan and Johnathan Johnson, according to the county attorney’s office.

Morgan, who is being represented by Ackerson, was in the passenger seat of the ambulance and suffered a crushing wound to his leg that later resulted in amputation, according to court records. The arbitrator said he suffered $5.6 million in damages alone.

Johnson, who is being represented by Yates, was driving the ambulance and sustained “significant injuries and mental trauma” worth $2.9 million, according to court documents.

Under state law, a third party, which in this case would be the city, isn’t entitled to recover expenses unless the victims are made whole.

The city claims it has a right to some of that money, but O’Connell’s office said it won’t seek any as long as Ackerson and Yates do not collect their fees. His office cites the EMTs’ pain and suffering, adding that the city has “significant interest in seeing them recover as much as possible in an attempt to be made whole.”

The county attorney’s motion said the EMTs should be paid about $612,900 from the pool of the auto company’s insurance money. But it argues that the court should withhold the roughly $364,600 the city estimates will be paid to Ackerson and Yates.

Support our journalism

Citing state law, O’Connell’s office said in its motion Wednesday that two council members cannot have claim to a pool of money before the city they represent collects. It adds that as council members, Ackerson and Yates, “should be interested in recovery on behalf of the government they represent” rather than themselves.

Ackerson obtained an opinion from the Metro Ethics Commission, which oversees those guidelines for city officials, that affirmed in July 2017 that he was “acting as a private attorney” and had no conflict.

He also said that O’Connell’s assistants acknowledged in a letter that month that while the county attorney’s office believed there was a conflict of interest, it was irrelevant to the case. Ackerson noted that was before he filed to run for county attorney.

“The only wrong I have committed is to have the audacity to challenge Mike O’Connell for an office that he believes he’s entitled to,” Ackerson said. “For that wrong I will not apologize nor will I concede ground to.”

O’Connell spokesman Josh Abner said the motions, “speak for themselves in that (state law) controls this purely legal question.”

Buy Photo

David Yates, Metro Council President. March 2, 2017 (Photo: By Michael Clevenger, C-J)

His office claims Yates is seeking a whopping 45 percent of his client’s damages while Ackerson is seeking 33 percent. The court records say Ackerson acknowledged that was his fee but that Yates had not responded to their inquiry.

Yates told Courier Journal on Friday that the amount in the motion was “fabricated” by the county attorney. He said his fees are 33 percent prior to litigation and 38 percent afterward.

“That might be what Mr. O’Connell charged in his private practice but I charge less,” Yates said.

“If you contact any personal injury attorney you will find that these type matters are taken on contingency fees, usually 33 percent to 40 percent,” Ackerson said. “I took Morgan’s case at 33 percent, a reasonable fee under all the circumstances.”

In its motion, the county attorney also alleges that before filing the suit two years ago, Ackerson and Yates reached out to the city’s budget office asking if the city would waive its claims to the settlement.

O’Connell’s office said that request by itself wasn’t unusual but that it raises concerns because Ackerson and Yates are council members.

Ackerson told Courier Journal that the county attorney’s “motion is lying when it says” they reached out to the budget office. He said their case never involved Louisville government because the EMTs were no longer employed by the city when they took on the case.

Yates also denied that he approached the Office of Management and Budget about the city releasing its liens in the case.

Reporter Phillip M. Bailey can be reached at 502-582-4475 or pbailey@courier-journal.com. Support strong local journalism by subscribing today: www.courier-journal.com/philb.

Council President David Yates is also the attorney for victims in the case, and Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell says that’s a conflict of interest for Yates almost like suing himself.

“This is one of the most serious cases that’s ever come to this jurisdiction in respect to this matter,” said O’Donnell.

“This is grandstanding at its best, judge,” said Tad Thomas. “It’s very clear they want to get into attorney client privilege information.”

Regardless if it was a conflict of interest, or grandstanding, Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman made it clear she wasn’t going to put up with a war of words between David Yates and Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell.

“This is not a barnyard,” said Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman. “That is an inappropriate exercise of the ability to subpoena someone.”

But that didn’t stop both sides from trying to ruffle each other’s feathers as to whether Yates should represent the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city while he serves as Metro Council president.

“You know how the system works, right,” asked O’Connell. “As president of the council, you know how money flows, how budgets are done, how appropriations for settlements come about. You know that don’t you?”

“I know that metro council doesn’t approve personal injury cases, and we never have, not one time since we’ve been there,” said Yates. “So, no I don’t know how that works.”

“Don’t you try to get money,” said O’Connell. “You made a $6-million demand to Metro Government to settle this case. You wanted money.”

“I will advocate for my client in all of the best means that I can,” said Yates. “What I wanted to do in this case is make sure the bad people go to prison.”

“Does anything in your answer have anything to do or explain the fact that you wanted $6-million of which you’re going to receive a portion of it in your answer,” said O’Connell. “You question is? You’re going to get paid!”

“I was worried about him hurting himself,” said Yates. “He had gone years without getting treatment because no one turned it over to child protective services when they should of.”

After the judge stepped in the county moved their attention to their expert witness, law professor Vincent Johnson who is firmly against Yates working against the city in the case despite the fact that the Kentucky Bar approved the move.

“I think these are real conflicts of interest,” said Vincent Johnson. “I think they currently exist.”

“Would you agree that the Kentucky bar association is in the best position to interpret its own rules,” asked Thomas.

“They’re certainly in a good position,” said Johnson. “I wouldn’t say they’re in the best.”

The judge declined a motion for a directed verdict after the county rested its case, saying that she wanted to hear things out.

After an hour long deliberation of the Louisville Metro Council’s ethics committee Democrat Brent Ackerson unveiled a 19-page draft of broad changes to discretionary spending rules on Tuesday.

The committee discussed a number of possible reforms including tighter rules for neighborhood grants and a resolution asking the General Assembly for a change in state law that would give the Metro Ethics Commission subpoena powers.

But the proposals Ackerson is outlining call for a drastic shift in policy such as blocking the use of neighborhood grant funding for community picnics and festivals unless there is a public purpose such as a health fair.

“At the end of the day I hope it will be equally offensive to all of us because that’s what it’s going to take here. This can’t be a situation where we say don’t touch my project or this or that,” says Ackerson. “Let’s just vomit the ideas out there and flush through. If we’re going to bring out real change then let’s really do it.”

He says it’s important lawmakers put bold ideas out for the public to debate in the wake of Barbara Shanklin’s expulsion trial, which in part centered on the use of discretionary funds.

Each council members receives $75,000 in Neighborhood Development Funds, $100,000 in Capital Infrastructure Funds and $30,000 for office expenses.

For years Democrats and Republicans have sparred over the use of those funds, but many have argued those expenditures are needed at the district level.

“I don’t want the public to believe that we have no rules and we don’t try to follow our rules, and that we haven’t worked diligently to improve them,” says Council President Jim King, adding a lack of oversight in the past created a “lax culture.”

But Ackerson described those change as “putting lipstick on a pig,” and his plan seeks to eliminate the use long held practices such as of council offices using Kroger gift cards and pre-approved travel expenditures.

Republican critics argue Ackerson is trying to save face after being one of the seven votes to retain Shanklin, who faced serious ethics charges.

Republican Kelly Downard claims Ackerson is “grandstanding” and lost political clout among Democrats and Republicans after being one of three swing votes that saved Shanklin from removal.

“Oh sure he’s gotten hurt bad. He exonerated Barbara Shanklin. He underestimated what that would do to him,” Downard said.

Still, Ackerson’s plan puts more scrutiny on neighborhood grants by requiring all expenditures be subject to a full council vote. Currently, the Appropriations Committee allows discretionary spending under $5,000 to go to the consent calendar for passage.

“We may have longer meetings, but to force more discussion about what’s taking place so we can make sure we’re making good business decisions. We’ve got to cut out pizza parties and things like that, and spending tax dollars on those sorts of things. That’s not our purpose,” says Ackerson.

Matthew Vaughn’s lawsuit seeks class-action status for thousands of people who have been through the Drive Safe Louisville program, alleging that he and others deserve refunds because Jefferson District Court Judge Sean Delahanty “struck down” the program last week.

While Delahanty wrote that the online traffic program is unconstitutional, the county attorney’s office has said they will continue to operate Drive Safe Louisville, which allows traffic offenders to pay a fee, take an online course and get their case dismissed without paying court costs.

“We believe the program is absolutely constitutional,” said Jessie Halladay, a spokeswoman with the county attorney’s office.

Vaughn was charged with careless driving on July 13 and paid $179 to take the program, which he completed on Oct. 21, according to the suit. Two days later, Delahanty ruled the program was unconstitutional, in part because the law allowing it “negates or unreasonably limits” the authority of judges to use their own discretion.

“My argument is that he should not have been forced to pay $179 to a program that has been declared unconstitutional,” said attorney Liddell Vaughn, who is representing Matthew Vaughn and is also related to him. “The government has basically taken millions of dollars from the citizens of Jefferson County who have gotten traffic violations.”

The county attorney’s office has made an estimated $1,275,000 through the program, according to Delahanty.

In a statement O’Connell said, “This complaint is inartfully drawn. My office looks forward to being heard on this matter in court.”

The lawsuit claims Matthew Vaughn and others were “induced to enroll in the unconstitutional Drive Safe Louisville” program to get charges against them dismissed.

At least one other Jefferson District Court judge has stopped agreeing to dismiss cases in which traffic offenders take the DSL program. Judge Stephanie Burke has told prosecutors she will honor Delahanty’s ruling that the program is unconstitutional.

Jessie Halladay, a spokeswoman for the county attorney’s office, said prosecutors are reviewing options on how to deal with cases in Delahanty and Burke’s courtrooms.

“We clearly feel there is some unjust treatment if only two judges are doing that,” she said.

Chief District Court Judge David Holton said he has not heard of any other judges who are not allowing the traffic program in their courts. And Holton said that while he respect’s Delahanty’s ruling and his position – and has some of the same concerns – he believes it only affects cases that come up in front of Delahanty.

On Friday, Delahanty did agree to dismiss more than 2,300 cases in which prosecutors had already made deals to drop the traffic charge if citizens completed the program.

Delahanty had been the lone local judge holding out on agreeing to dismiss cases handled in traffic programs launched as revenue generators by county attorneys – even though the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled they are legal.

In his ruling, Delahanty maintained that the statute passed by the General Assembly to allow the traffic programs “was rushed into implementation and is constitutionally flawed.

And Delahanty wrote that he is also concerned about ethical issues involving the program, including the Louisville Metro Police Department telling traffic offenders about Drive Safe Louisville. The county attorney’s office also sends letters to charged drivers when traffic citations are issued, telling them about DSL.

“The Court has serious concerns about the propriety of such actions by the County Attorney and persons acting on his behalf in contacting litigants directly despite being represented by counsel,” according to the ruling.

So far, about 15,000 traffic violators have paid a fee, taken the Drive Safe Louisville program and had their cases dismissed without paying court costs, not counting those pending in front of Judge Delahanty.

O’Connell is one of more than 80 county prosecutors who have launched traffic schools to raise revenue for their offices. The money is distributed to several recipients, including the county clerk,.

LOUISVILLE, Ky., (WDRB) — In hopes of stopping what Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell calls a “despicable practice” by defense attorneys, his office has recently begun asking judges to force the defense to file motions to suppress evidence at least 30 days before trial.

O’Connell has complained that District Court judges allow defense attorneys to file motions to suppress evidence after trials began – once jeopardy attaches, meaning prosecutors are prohibited from trying the defendant again for the same crime.

“We just want a level playing field,” O’Connell said in an interview Tuesday. “It’s patently unjust and unfair that these motions are not required to be made before trial.”

But defense attorneys, and some judges, say O’Connell’s request goes against criminal procedures set out by the state Supreme Court.

“The rules aren’t written for the convenience of the county attorney,” defense attorney Ted Shouse argued before a judge Tuesday in a shoplifting case. “This is an extraordinary motion they are making. They are asking to change the rules of criminal procedure.”

Shouse told District Judge Annette Karem that the county attorney’s office has been making the request in “every single case,” using boiler-plate language. Karem did not make a ruling Tuesday.

O’Connell agreed that the motions are being made in every case, though he said the problem is exploited by defense attorneys the most in driving under the influence trials.

The motions come less than a year after O’Connell wrote to district court judges complaining about what he called “disingenuous maneuvering” by defense lawyers in drunken driving cases. He said the motions to suppress evidence should come before trial, as long as the defense knows about the issue, giving the prosecution an opportunity to appeal the ruling if necessary.

In the letter from last December, O’Connell asked judges to address what he called “a very serious and unnecessary situation” by changing local court rules to bar the tactic.

Shouse and other defense attorneys say requiring them to file suppression motions 30 days before trial goes against the rules of criminal procedure set by the state Supreme Court, which allows the defense to make a motion to suppress “anytime, even during trial,” Shouse told Karem. “I’m not sure this court has the authority to grant this motion.”

And in an interview, District Court Judge Stephanie Burke agreed, saying she has a standing order denying the motions by prosecutors because the rules of criminal procedure allow the defense to ask to suppress evidence at any time.

“We can not change the rules of evidence,” Burke said in an interview. “We must adhere to the rules as they are.”

O’Connell argues that the judge has the “inherent authority to establish” their own procedural rules and pointed out that a federal court rule requires motions to suppress evidence be made before trials start. O’Connell argues that the rule for state court is designed to address instances in which previously unknown evidence arises.

Prosecutors have been filing the motions for the last few months, though O’Connell’s office knows of only one instance in which a judge granted the request. And in that case, both the defense and prosecution agreed that all motions to suppress would be submitted 20 days before trial.

Earlier this month, O’Connell’s office asked the state Supreme Court to amend the criminal rule to require motions to suppress evidence be made at least 20 days prior to trial.

The proposed amendment, sent to Supreme Court Justice Will T. Scott on Nov. 8, would also require judges to decide “every pre-trial motion before trial unless it finds good cause to defer a ruling.”

“Simply put, our rules should encourage the making of motions at the earliest possible time for prompt resolution rather than at the latest possible time after the attachment of jeopardy in a criminal case,” O’Connell wrote.

Commonwealth’s Attorney Tom Wine has also asked the Supreme Court for the same change in the criminal rule.

Wine said the circuit court actually has a local rule that requires suppression motions, among others, to be filed prior to trial, though he said it doesn’t override the state rules if defense attorneys pushed the issue.

Wine is asking that the Supreme Court amend the criminal rule so it will be uniform with the local circuit court rule and prosecutors won’t “be caught by surprise” during trial.

O’Connell said local attorneys don’t make such motions for suppression during trial in circuit court because those judges wouldn’t allow for it.

“This is a game defense attorneys play in Jefferson District Court that is not played in circuit court,” he said.

O’Connell has said it is a significant reason why there is a high acquittal rate in DUI cases tried by District Court judges. In particular, O’Connell has said attorney Paul Gold has won many trials by asking a judge to suppress evidence – such as the statements a defendant made or breathalyzer test results – during the trial rather than before, giving prosecutors no chance to appeal the ruling.

O’Connell said that those motions would be known about long before trial and “one way judges can stop the abuse of rules” is to declare a mistrial when such a suppression issue comes up, hold the suppression hearing and set a new trial date.

In an interview Gold said he is fighting several of the motions in DUI cases he is handling, all of which are pending, arguing it is clearly against the Supreme Court criminal rules.

In a motion asking a district court judge to deny the motion, Gold said a defense attorney asking a judge to suppress a statement of a defendant at trial because he wasn’t read his rights by police was not “sandbagging,” as O’Connell has said, but “incompetence” on the part of prosecutors.

“Prosecutors who come to trial unprepared to carry this burden cannot legitimately complain that they were treated ‘unfairly’ by a court’s adverse decision,” he wrote.

Delahanty has declined to dismiss charges against roughly 2,300 defendants who have graduated from the program, arguing the county attorney’s office has no right to dismiss charges without court costs also being applied.

According to reports, when the traffic program started, then-District Judge Ann Bailey Smith also declined to dismiss citations against motorists who completed the program, saying they must also pay court costs of $134. A state Supreme Court ruling filed in June, however, said Smith’s objections were rendered moot and allowed drivers to get their citations dismissed if they pay a fee and take O’Connell’s online program. The court dismissed an appeal by Smith last week.

Despite the court’s ruling, Delahanty set a Thursday hearing for five representative defendants, news outlets report. Delahanty said any order he issues will apply to all 2,300 cases that ended up in his court.

O’Connell said in court papers that the charges against all 2,300 should be dismissed based on the state Supreme Court’s ruling and added that Delahanty has no legal grounds for “cherry picking” five representatives.

According to reports, in the first 18 months of operation, 17,557 drivers completed O’Connell’s program, which generated about $2.6 million. About $1.3 million went to the county attorney’s office. The rest goes to a contractor that runs the program and to nine recipients including the state and local governments to fund local jails and other programs.

Copyright 2018 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

District Court Judge Stephanie Pearce Burke says her speciality drug court in Jefferson County designed to steer criminal defendants toward addiction treatment instead of jail is producing good results, but it’s only at half-capacity and in need of discretionary funds to help participants in crisis pay for housing, medication and food to increase their odds of completing the program.

Earlier this week, Burke participated in the inaugural criminal justice roundtable of city leaders created by Citizens of Louisville Organized and United Together (CLOUT), a faith-based social justice group. In the meeting — which included representatives of Louisville Metro Police, Metro Council, Mayor Greg Fischer’s office, Metro Corrections and the Jefferson County Attorney — CLOUT advocated for several policy changes to steer those with mental illness and drug addiction away from the criminal justice system and toward treatment and services.

Asked what the roundtable participants can do to help the drug court system, Burke said the court is in need of a discretionary fund to help participants who immediately require financial assistance — such as $75-100 to pay for a first week’s rent, $50 to fill a prescription to treat a co-occurring mental illness, or even food and clothing in an emergency.

“Even $5,000 or $10,000 would be a huge amount of money and go a long way in meeting the needs of our participants,” said Burke, who added that stable housing is often the largest burden and obstacle toward their successful completion of the program.

While her court can’t itself fundraise, she suggested that a steering committee be formed that could take on this task, as has taken place in other cities around the country in implementing similar drug courts.

Though Burke said her drug court is growing with an influx of participants in the past month, it is “currently only at about half capacity,” which aligned with CLOUT’s handout at the meeting stating that the drug court has enough staff to serve 160 participants, but only 80-90 are currently in the program. But while CLOUT called for “more training of judges and prosecutors” on the benefits of the program so they will refer more defendants to it, after the meeting Burke countered that the lack of participation is more due to hesitancy among defense attorneys who she says often believe they can get their client a better deal outside the rigorous treatment model of the drug court.

“I’ve had attorneys tell me ‘well, drug court is for criminals and my client is not a criminal,’” said Burke. “Well, that’s actually backwards. Drug court is for addicts, and it’s addicts who end up in the criminal system due to their addiction. And we treat them like people who have an illness, which they do.”

In the meeting, Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell took issue with the suggestion that his prosecutors need more training on the drug court program so they’ll refer more defendants to it, saying that while they can discuss and encourage such a decision, they cannot force a defendant to do so and “this is not a process where we just refer people into a drug court.”

“It’s not like we have empty seats in the Yum! Center and we just start shoveling people in there,” said O’Connell, whose own son died of a heroin overdose three years ago.

Burke said both defense attorneys and prosecutors alike need to examine and share a defendant’s history, even in cases as simple as theft, as “I see people who have 10 or 15 theft charges and they’re all drug related. That person is an addict and the only reason they’re stealing is to get their next fix. So why don’t we do something smart for the community and stop that perpetrating on the community and get them into treatment.”

Adding that most participants in her drug court program have co-occurring disorders of substance abuse and mental illness, Burke said such people are able to receive both mental health services and addiction treatment.

“They have a counselor, they have a clinical therapist, they have all of this through our program,” said Burke. “All of these people that are coming in front of the criminal courts do not have access to those resources. So I try to explain to (defense attorneys) that they’re not doing their client any favors by talking them out of it, when those people want treatment, they want help… People who have a support network like we have fare so much better in their sobriety and their recovery than people who are out there just kind of fending for themselves trying to do it on their own.”

Burke said the best part about drug court is that “our people are not reoffending,” adding that “on that alone, the community should be demanding that people be in our program, because it reduces recidivism, particularly of theft crimes and breaking into houses and stealing from their families and breaking into cars.”

According to Burke, only 30-35 percent of drug court participants fully complete the program and graduate, but she added this is higher than the national average that is in the 20s. Burke also said she would consider roughly 80 percent of those going through her drug court as being successful in their recovery, adding that many who don’t wind up graduating “may have been disqualified from the program or exited the program for some reason that was not reoffending or not getting in trouble or failure. And those people are still being successful – much more successful in their recovery than they were before the program.”

Louisville — like many cities throughout the country — is in the midst of a growing opioid epidemic, as both fatal and non-fatal overdoses have risen by alarming rates over the past two years, driven mostly by the use of heroin and fentanyl.

CLOUT’s inaugural “Safe City Roundtable” was held on Monday at the Metro United Way | Photo by Joe Sonka

Despite a growing national movement of addiction treatment professionals and peer-reviewed research touting medication-assisted treatment (MAT) as a best practice in combating dependence on opioids like heroin and prescription painkillers, the large majority of addiction treatment practiced around the country is abstinence-based. As of last spring, less than 2 percent of the 2,420 participants in Kentucky’s specialty courts were in a program utilizing MAT, including only seven in Jefferson County.

Of MAT, Burke said, “We’re not opposed to it and we use it when necessary.”

“We do use medication-assisted treatment when we believe it’s appropriate, but we weigh each person on a case-by-case basis and what that person’s specific needs are,” said Burke. “A lot of our people determine that they don’t want that crutch, and we have people come into the program who are on medication-assisted treatment who ultimately graduated without it by the time they came off it. So it’s a good thing to see.”

Burke said she is “a big fan of Vivitrol,” the non-narcotic monthly injection that blocks the euphoric effects of opioids. Though Suboxone — the brand name of a sublingual film containing the partial agonist opioid buprenorphine — is increasingly hailed by addiction professionals and research as a vital tool in the fight against illicit opioids, Burke said she had “a few” use that drug in treatment. She is opposed to MAT utilizing methadone, saying “we don’t see methadone as being successful” based on the participants who entered the program while using it.

Asked if appropriations from the city budget or individual council members’ discretionary funds should go toward the creation of an emergency fund for drug court participants, Burke said she is “talking with some council members at this time to do that,” adding that ” a judge should not be lobbying for funds, but we’re in the desperate situation of trying to educate them about the fact that we are without these resources.” She said the creation of a steering committee would be ideal in the short term, as “most big successful programs across the country do have those,” which could help in the writing of grant proposals for additional funds.

CLOUT also advocated at the meeting for additional financial support for Centerstone Kentucky’s new Living Room Project, in which police officers can take low-level offenders with mental health or substance abuse issues to their facility, instead of jail, where they can be connected to resources. This pilot project recently received $325,000 in the 2017-2018 fiscal year budget passed by Metro Council, but Centerstone says they will need additional funds to expand the program to its full potential for multiple years. CLOUT also is backing a similar Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) model for LMPD officers to divert low-level drug offenders to treatment, which already is supported by Chief Steve Conrad, whose department has sought a grant to implement such a model for offenders addicted to opioids.

]]>https://www.ackerson2018.com/drug-court-judge-seeks-emergency-fund-for-participants-in-treatment-program/feed/054Attorneys on Louisville Metro Council Have Taken Double Oathshttps://www.ackerson2018.com/attorneys-on-louisville-metro-council-have-taken-double-oaths/#utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=attorneys-on-louisville-metro-council-have-taken-double-oaths
https://www.ackerson2018.com/attorneys-on-louisville-metro-council-have-taken-double-oaths/#respondThu, 07 Apr 2016 05:57:18 +0000http://www.ackerson2018.com/?p=52Continue reading Attorneys on Louisville Metro Council Have Taken Double Oaths→]]>Three Metro Council members have taken sworn oaths nearly identical to the one Democrat David James is being scrutinized about as a University of Louisville police officer.

James has sworn to the Kentucky Constitution as a council member and as a major with the campus police department, which both include saying he has not “fought a duel with deadly weapons” among similar pieces of language.

The Jefferson County attorney’s office is arguing that James is holding incompatible public offices, and must relinquish one of the two.

It’s a controversial legal question that has been sent to the Commonwealth Attorney for further review, but some worry that could apply to other elected officials.

“There’s a lot of strange grey area there,” says Councilman Brent Ackerson, D-26, a practicing attorney, adding he doesn’t see much difference in the oath UofL police officers and members of the state bar association take.

Before joining the council Ackerson, along with David Tandy, D-4, and David Yates, D-25, took the following oath:

Here is the oath James took as a UofL police officer:

“We’ve got judges who’ve taken the oath as lawyers and as also the oath as judge. Our county attorney is a lawyer and at the same time took an oath of office to be the county attorney,” says Ackerson. “We’ve got part-time prosecutors who work for the city in the morning in traffic court and their own law practice in the afternoon. We’ve got state legislators who are out there.”

Asked if council members who are practicing attorneys should be concerned about the same jobs conflict as James, a spokesman declined to make Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell available for an interview.

But O’Connell’s offices does argues those oaths do not apply to their legal opinion.

“Both Section 165 of the Kentucky Constitution and (state law) provide that no person shall, at the same time, be a state officer and an officer of any county, city or other municipality or an employee thereof. Merely being licensed as a practicing attorney in the Commonwealth does not establish one as a state or local officer,” said county attorney spokesman Bill Patteson.

O’Connell’s office cites several legal opinions rendered by the attorney general’s office in years past on what constitutes a “public office.”

In 2000, it was asked if Kentucky Retirement System trustees are state officers. The attorney general’s office outlined a five-part test in response.

It said the office must be created by the Constitution, state legislature, or a municipality with conferred legislative authority; must possess a portion sovereign power of the government to be exercised by the office holder for the benefit of the public; and the powers and duties of the office must be defined by the authority creating it.

The legal opinion went on to say that the duties of the office must be performed independently and without control of any “superior” public power and the office itself is one of permanency and continuity until the law creating it is repealed.

James’ defense will center more on which offices are compatible rather than the oaths taken, but his legal counsel adds the county attorney’s opinion is still incorrect.

“There is an old doctrine in Kentucky—the notion of what offices are compatible and not compatible—so it is an analysis of the offices more so than just whether someone took an oath or not,” says attorney Todd Lewis, who is representing James. “But I will tell you that our position is that the county attorney was absolutely, one-hundred percent dead wrong about his legal analysis and he was dead wrong about his motives too.”

Faulkner criticized O’Connell during a debate on Friday hosted by the Louisville Bar Association. The two are opponents in the May primary.

Faulkner said O’Connell has displayed unethical behavior, making him unfit to serve the people of Jefferson County.

“It is the county attorney’s job to represent the Metro Council members. That comes with a duty, he broke that duty,” she said. “He did not represent Councilman James, instead he broke the confidentiality and tried to throw his client under the bus. That is unethical.”

Earlier this month, O’Connell issued an opinion that Councilman David James should not cast council votes because he has taken a conflicting oath to serve as a police officer for the University of Louisville.

“I think the contrast between me and Ms. Faulkner is pretty clear in connection with this office,” O’Connell said. “Jefferson County deserves an experienced attorney to be county attorney. This office is too big and too important to be in the hands of someone who lacks the necessary skill and experience to move forward.”

Faulkner would become the first elected female county attorney in Jefferson County if she wins the post. O’Connell has held the office since 2008.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff, Connie Marshall, has filed no less than twenty-nine (29) pro se lawsuits in the Western District of Kentucky between February 4, 2003 and December 18, 2010. The majority of the lawsuits make the same allegations as those raised in this suit — that the Plaintiff is the target of a vast conspiracy involving false imprisonment, violations of her civil rights, and set ups. So far none has reached even the trial stage. Defendants, Jefferson County Attorney Mike O’Connell, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Louisville Metro Police Department (“LMPD”), LMPD Chief Steve Conrad, and LMPD Officers Brandon Hogan and Edward Wagner, have moved on all claims against them. Though Plaintiff has not responded, the Court has reviewed the motion to determine its merit. The Court agrees with the arguments set forth in Defendants’ brief. For the reasons that follow and others, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed.

I.

On June 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Jefferson Circuit Court. Following some discovery, Defendants removed the matter to federal court. Thereafter, this Court granted the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of immunity. Plaintiff’s claims against O’Connell, the LMPD, Conrad, Hogan, and Wagner remained.

In her complaint, Plaintiff first alleges that excessive force was used against her when she was arrested on June 26, 2012, and just generally alleges that the Louisville Metro Police caused her serious injury. She then goes on to allege that Louisville Metro Police are sending her threatening emails and phone calls and is attempting to set her up. Plaintiff does not cite to any specific officers as engaging in this behavior. Instead, she alleges it against LMPD as a whole. She alleges that alleged violations of state laws and unconstitutional practices have occurred because of the failure of the “Defendants” to properly train, supervise, and discipline individual police officers.

Plaintiff engaged only in limited written discovery and has admitted that she was suing the remaining Defendants only in their official capacities. As part of those same discovery requests, Plaintiff sets forth an arm’s length list of allegations against various police officers, dating back to 2007. She does not list Conrad or O’Connell on her list of officers who have allegedly violated her rights. She later moved to file additional “evidence,” and submitted unverified emails and letters not linked to any of the named Defendants in this case.

II.

Summary judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242 (1986). The issue is whether the evidence submitted presents a sufficient disagreement about the material facts so that submission to a jury is necessary, or whether the evidence is so one-sided that a party must prevail as a matter of law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52. For a fact to be material it must affect the outcome of the suit; “[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. at 248.

The moving party has the initial burden of showing that there is an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The non-moving party — Plaintiff here — must proffer evidence that points to disputes of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Plaintiff “may not rest upon mere allegations or denial of his pleadings, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit pro se. Although courts are to hold pro se pleadings “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner,404 U.S. 519 (1972), this duty to be less stringent “does not require [courts] to conjure up unpled allegations,” McDonald v. Hall,610 F.2d 16, 19 (1st Cir. 1979), or to create a claim for a plaintiff. Clark v. Nat’l Travelers Life Ins. Co.,518 F.2d 1167, 1169 (6th Cir. 1975). To command otherwise would require courts “to explore exhaustively all potential claims of a pro se plaintiff, [and] would also transform the district court from its legitimate advisory role to the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton,775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

III.

Plaintiff names the Louisville Metro Police Department as a defendant. However, that entity is not one capable of being sued. The proper party is the Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government (“Louisville Metro”). See Matthews v. Jones,35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994) (“Since the Police Department is not an entity which may be sued, Jefferson County is the proper party to address the allegations of Matthews’s complaint.”) and Smallwood v. Jefferson County Government,743 F.Supp. 502, 503 (W.D.Ky.1990).

Sovereign immunity precludes an action “against the state unless the state has given its consent or otherwise waived its immunity.” Yanero v. Davis,65 S.W.3d 510, 518 (Ky. 2001). As political subdivisions of the state, county governments are likewise entitled to sovereign immunity. Id. at 526. Louisville Metro is a consolidated local government established pursuant to K.R.S. Chapter 67C. The General Assembly expressly addressed the applicable immunity of such governments in K.R.S. 67C.101(2)(e), which provides that consolidated local governments “shall be accorded the same sovereign immunity granted counties, their agencies, officers, and employees.” See also Jewish Hosp. Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, 270 S.W.3d 905, 906 (Ky. App. 2008); Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government v. Smolcic,142 S.W.3d 128, 132 (Ky. 2004).

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, Louisville Metro is immune from suit for all state law claims. It appears that Plaintiff attempts to set forth state law claims against Louisville Metro for assault and battery, negligence, and violation of Kentucky statutory and common law, including KRS 446.070. To the extent Plaintiff’s complaint alleges state law claims against Louisville Metro, they must be dismissed.

Plaintiff’s attempt to impose supervisory liability for alleged state tort claims also fails. In Schwindel v. Meade County,113 S.W.3d 159, 163 (Ky.2003), the Supreme Court stated, “[i]f damages could be recovered against a county on the basis of respondeat superior, the concept of sovereign immunity would be largely nullified because state and county governments perform their ministerial functions by and through their agents, servants, and employees.” (internal citation omitted). Respondeat superior does not and cannot waive the sovereign immunity. Phillips v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government,331 S.W.3d 629, 632 (Ky. App. 2010).

Because Louisville Metro has not waived sovereign immunity for the state law claims set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint, it is entitled to dismissal of all state claims against it set forth in Plaintiff’s complaint.

IV.

Plaintiff’s only federal claim is for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first allegation under § 1983 alleges that the assault and battery amounts to excessive force and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While unclear, it appears that Plaintiff attempts to state this claim against the “City” as well as the Defendant Unknown Officers. Aa municipality can be held liable under § 1983 only when the municipality itself is responsible for the constitutional violation. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris,489 U.S. 378 (1989). There is no respondeat superior or vicarious liability under §1983. Bd. of the City Commr. of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown,520 U.S. 397 (1997). Accordingly, a municipality is not liable under §1983 unless it can be established that a police officer’s actions were the result of an official municipal policy. Monell v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Social Services,436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978). Because Plaintiff does not make any allegations that Metro had an official policy of assault and battery, the allegations of a violation of § 1983 on that basis must be dismissed.

Mere recitations of inadequate training are insufficient to state a claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). Under Iqbal, a court must first “begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth” as required when evaluating a motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Plaintiff’s allegation in her complaint against Metro related to inadequate training is “[d]efendants have tolerated this [misconduct] through their failure to supervise, train, investigate, and discipline police officers adequately which has allowed the officers to violate the Plaintiff, Connie Marshall, for the past eight (8) years and before and continues to date.” [Complaint Document 1-2; Page 19 of 32; PageID #: 25]; and “[t]he violations of state laws and unconstitutional practices in the Complaint have been caused by the failure of the Defendants to properly train supervise and discipline individual police officers in the Louisville Metro Police Department.” [Complaint Document 1-2; Page 22 of 32; PageID #: 28]. These statements are no more than mere conclusions; therefore, are not entitled to an assumption of truth.

Because Plaintiff does not provide anything more in her complaint to support her § 1983 claims against Louisville Metro, those claims must be dismissed. See Weathers v. Anderson, 2012 WL 1593136 at *3 (W.D. Ky. May 4, 2012).

V.

“Official-capacity suits . . . `generally represent [] another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.'” Kentucky v. Graham,473 U.S. 159,166 (1985) (quoting Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs.,436 U.S. 658, 691 n.55 (1978). Plaintiffs’ official-capacity claims against Defendants O’Connell, Conrad, Hogan and Wagner, therefore, are actually against Louisville Metro. See Lambert v. Hartman,517 F.3d 433, 440 (6th Cir. 2008) (stating that civil rights suit against county clerk of courts in his official capacity was equivalent of suing clerk’s employer, the county).

When a § 1983 claim is made against a municipality, this Court must analyze two distinct issues: (1) whether Plaintiffs harm was caused by a constitutional violation; and (2) if so, whether the municipality is responsible for that violation. Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex.,503 U.S. 115, 120 (1992). In essence, this involves a similar analysis to that just discussed.

To demonstrate municipal liability, a plaintiff “must (1) identify the municipal policy or custom, (2) connect the policy to the municipality, and (3) show that his particular injury was incurred due to execution of that policy.” Alkire v. Irving;330 F.3d 802, 815 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Garner v. Memphis Police Dep’t,8 F.3d 358, 364 (6th Cir. 1993). However, none of the allegations in the complaint demonstrates that any alleged wrongdoing or injury occurred as a result of a policy or custom implemented or endorsed by Louisville Metro. Accordingly, the complaint fails to establish a basis of liability against the municipality and fails to state a cognizable § 1983 claim. Therefore, the official capacity claims against Defendants O’Connell, Conrad, Hogan and Wagner should be dismissed.

VI.

The complaint contains no factual allegations directly against O’Connell or Conrad. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to hold O’Connell and Conrad liable based on their supervisory position as the chief legal advisor of Jefferson County or Conrad as the chief of the local police department, the doctrine of respondeat superior, or the right to control employees, does not apply in § 1983 actions to impute liability onto supervisors. Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. at 691; Taylor v. Mich. Dept. of Corr.,69 F.3d 76, 80-81 (6th Cir. 1995); Bellamy v. Bradley,729 F.2d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1984). “[S]imple awareness of employees’ misconduct does not lead to supervisor liability.” Leary v. Daeschner,349 F.3d 888, 903 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Lillard v. Shelby Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,76 F.3d 716, 728 (6th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff fails to allege that O’Connell and Conrad were directly involved in any of the alleged wrongdoing.

For these reasons, Plaintiff fails to state an individual-capacity claim against either O’Connell or Conrad.

VII.

The complaint contains no indication that Plaintiff intends to impose individual liability on Hogan and Wagner. And the discovery answers in DN 1-3 affirmatively state that the officials are sued in their official capacity. Therefore, should not construe this action as asserting an individual-capacity claim against him. An official-capacity claim against Hogan and Wagner should be dismissed for his failure to allege a municipal policy or custom that resulted in his alleged harm. Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d at 815.

To the degree that an individual capacity claim is asserted Hogan and Wagner are entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity `is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.'” Elliott v. Lator,497 F.3d 644, 650 (6th Cir. 2007) citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 800, 816 (1982). In evaluating claims of qualified immunity, the Court must first “determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second . . . determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known; finally . . . determine whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, and supported the allegations by sufficient evidence, to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.” Williams v. Mehra,186 F.3d 685, 691 (6th Cir. 1999) citing to Dickerson v. McClellan,101 F.3d 1151, 1157-58 (6th Cir.1996).

Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden of establishing that these Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity by failing to prove that the officers “violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pray v. City of Sandusky,49 F.3d 1154, 1158 (6th Cir. 1995) citing to Adams v. Metiva,31 F.3d 375, 386 (6th Cir. 1994).

Being otherwise sufficiently advised,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is SUSTAINED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.